Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYDE RIVER PURIFICATION BOARD BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1970–71

Accounts ordered,
showing:—
(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1971.
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Giro

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will state the cumulative Giro losses to 31st December, 1971, or latest convenient date; when he intends to eliminate losses; and how he proposes to finance the losses.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Cumulative losses to March, 1971, of £13·7 million were financed by the Post Office. As foreshadowed in my statement on 17th November last year, the service is being reshaped by the Post Office so as to make it profitable. New financial objectives will be agreed with the Board as soon as this reconstruction is completed.—[Vol. 826, c. 424.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that the Government refuse to underwrite the losses of the Coal Board by subsidy, why should the Minister continue to underwrite the losses of this nationalised industry, the Post Office Giro, which up to December had already lost £20 million and is still losing money—a drain on taxpayers like myself?

Mr. Chataway: There is no question of the Government underwriting these losses. As my hon. Friend will know, Cooper Bros. were employed as consultants to consider the future of Giro and came to the conclusion that it should not be closed. On that basis, the Post Office was authorised to proceed to the reconstruction that I have described.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that Giro has had difficulty when so many of his hon. Friends are seeking to sell it or to get rid of it? Is not the answer to the problem to make certain of the continued existence of Giro by saying that nothing will happen to it for the next five years so that public confidence can be restored? Is it likely that people will open accounts with Giro when hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying week after week that it should be got rid of? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is proposed to continue Giro indefinitely?

Mr. Chataway: I certainly would not say of any activity of the Post Office or of any other nationalised industry that it would necessarily be continued indefinitely. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?] Any activity has to pay its way. If any service were to make a substantial loss over a period, naturally its future would be looked at. I gave the Government's decision in my statement in November, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestiton that the nature of the difficulties relates to the criticisms made of Giro. It is clear that it got off to a bad start.

Mr. Waddington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most flagrant abuses of the system came to light in a criminal trial in Manchester last autumn? Is he satisfied that those who are required to operate Giro know how the system works, or is supposed to work, and is he satisfied that opportunities for abuse have, as far as possible, been closed?

Mr. Chataway: I am completely satisfied that the Post Office has taken extremely seriously the incidents to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: We on this side welcome the Minister's decision, not least because of the unemployment throughout the country. We hope that now the uncertainty has been removed he and his colleagues will do what they can to publicise the advantage of Giro. I press him, as I have sometimes done before, to say what he feels about the suggestion contained in page 4 of the Post Office Report that in all appropriate circumstances Government Departments should give a lead by using the Giro services.

Mr. Chataway: The Government's position is that Government Departments should be free to choose the service which is best suited to them. This leaves them absolutely free to choose Giro if they believe it is the best service from their point of view.

Crown Post Offices (Land Requirements)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to complete without delay its review of the land it requires for the building of new Crown post offices.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. A general direction would not be appropriate.

Mr. Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable amounts of land are tied up and that until the Post Office gets its fingers out—[An HON. MEMBER: "Vulgar."] I am copying other hon. Gentlemen—and decides what it can release to local authorities, which need the surplus land for housing, libraries and other purposes, they are unable to get on with the job and vast amounts of capital are being allowed to lie fallow?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office has its land requirements as a whole under continuous review but I am satisfied that the Board is well aware of the importance of releasing any land which proves surplus to its requirements.

Television and Radio Broadcasting

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has now received regarding the allocation of the fourth ultra high frequency television channel.

Mr. Chataway: Thirteen organisations have written to me. With permission, I hope to make a statement on the fourth channel at the end of Questions.

Postal Charges

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now make a further statement on postal charges.

Mr. Chataway: I have nothing yet to add to the reply I gave on 17th November last to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Members for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 826, c. 395–6.]

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at about this time last year he and other members of the Government were trying to frighten the Post Office workers, who had put in a reasonable wage claim, about the massive increase in postal charges that would ensue? Perhaps he can be more specific now, 12 months later. Will he assure the House that there will be no further postal charge increases this year?

Mr. Chataway: We are at the moment awaiting the report of the Post Office Users National Council on the proposals put to that body by the Post Office. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that an inescapable fact for the Post Office is that some 75 per cent. of its postal costs are labour costs.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will not the Minister break this conspiracy of silence about prospective increases in postal charges? As he is well aware, the quin-quennial financial target is not likely to be achieved if the rumour is correct that the Post Office Users National Council is about to oppose the Post Office Corporation's demand for the abolition of the second delivery, and would not the financial consequences make postal charge increases inevitable?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office could not have been more open about the matter. It has put forward a number of alternative proposals for increases within the 5 per cent. limit and also suggestions for cutting services. It has put forward those matters as suggestions for consideration by the users' representatives and has said that no final decision will be reached until their comments have been received. That is the Post Office's position, and it is also the Government's position. I do not think we could be more open than that.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make a statement on this matter? Will he make any such statement in the House of Commons, so that we can question him about it, and not in the form of a Written Answer to one of his hon. Friends? Secondly, although in a technical sense there must be recommendations by the Post Office Board, presumably the Minister has a view on the matter and could he say what it is as soon as possible?

Mr. Chataway: I shall be consulting the Post Office as soon as the Post Office Users National Council's report is received and I have undertaken to inform the House when a decision is taken. It is not the practice to make oral statements on every price increase in a nationalised industry.

Telephone Kiosks (Vandalism)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was the number of telephone kiosks damaged by vandalism in 1971; and how this compares with the figure for 1970.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office tells me there were 150,027 incidents of vandalism to telephone kiosks in the 12 months ended 30th September, 1971, compared with 171,044 in the previous 12 months.

Mr. Dalyell: Those are appalling figures. Could not a forbidding notice be posted in each kiosk threatening dire fines to anybody who commits vandalism?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure the Post Office will look carefully at that suggestion, but there are already very substantial penalties which anybody involved in vandalism can incur.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Has there been any significant change in the number of public telephone kiosks comparing 1970 with 1971, and would my right hon. Friend be prepared to discuss with the Home Secretary the possibility of revising the penalties for acts of vandalism in kiosks?

Mr. Chataway: I will send my hon. Friend the figures for which he asks. He will know that the Criminal Damage Act, which became law on 14th October, provides penalties of 10 years' imprisonment for most offences of criminal damage and even higher penalties for certain grave offences.

Mr. Dempsey: As this problem is becoming more serious and affects almost all constituencies, is it not about time that the Minister had top-level discussions with the police and the judiciary to see what steps they can take to assist the right hon. Gentleman to combat this wicked destruction of public property?

Mr. Chataway: I assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody is complacent about the present figures even though there was an improvement in the past year. Some 1·1 per cent. of all public telephone kiosks are reckoned to be out of order at any one time. This may seem a small percentage, but it is far too high.

Commercial Radio

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what further requests he has received from the newspaper industry's representatives for a meeting with him as a result of Her Majesty's Government's proposed policy on commercial radio.

Mr. Chataway: Since the publication of the White Paper I have received and complied with two requests to meet representatives of the newspaper industry.

Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he meets representatives of the newspaper industry, particularly the Newspaper Proprietors Association, that there is grave concern about the prospects of commercial radio and the effects it will have on local newspapers?

Mr. Chataway: The relationships between broadcasting and the Press have


been very much borne in mind in framing the proposals in the present legislation. I have had continuous discussions with the newspaper industry in preparing the Bill.

Mr. Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is concern about the question of news generally, and will he also recognise the importance of commercial radio providing a good news service? Does he not agree that a central news station is the best way of providing such a service, and will he totally disregard the radio Luddites who are trying to stand in the way of this advance?

Mr. Chataway: I must not be lured into unnecessarily controversial ground, but I repeat what I have said on a number of occasions: that I attach the greatest importance to a good service of national and local news in the new system.

Postmen (Redundancies)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent discussions he has had with the Post Office about redundancies among postmen.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir. As I told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) on 22nd December, the Post Office does not expect any serious redundancy problems to arise.—[Vol. 828, c. 345.]

Mr. Price: Over what period does the Minister expect no considerable redundancy to arise?

Mr. Chataway: For the foreseeable future.

Television (Locally-Initiated Programmes)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he has now considered the project submitted to him by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East and Greenwich Cablevision Limited for the transmission by cable of locally-initiated television programmes, free of advertising, in the Woolwich area; and what decision he has reached.

Mr. Chataway: I am willing in principle to license this project on an experimental footing until July, 1976, subject to certain conditions. I shall also be

willing to consider licensing a few other similar limited experiments without advertising. I will with permission circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that that is a very welcome reply and that, for the first time, there will be genuine do-it-yourself local television which will be run extremely cheaply, without advertising? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whether it succeeds or fails, this is an experiment which is well worth trying and that my constituents will do their best to make a success of it?

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe there could be value in one or two limited experiments of this kind to test whether a purely local television cable service of this sort might in time meet a need.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House welcome the decision he has made, not least because of the strong public service content which we hope will be embodied on the lines of the suggestion of my hon. Friend? Is the Minister also aware that we are delighted to hear that he hopes that these experiments will increase so that we can make a proper judgment on this and other similar facilities that are offered?

Following are the details:
The conditions are:
Finance. No public money will be provided for applicants, who will be required to pay a licence fee sufficient to cover the Ministry's expenses in granting the licence and supervising the experiment.
Programme standards and technical quality of the service. Applicants will be required to satisfy the Ministry that programme standards and technical quality of service will be acceptable. All programmes must be of a kind specially designed to appeal to the local communities in the areas served. No advertising and no sponsored programmes will be allowed.
No more than six experiments would be authorised and, if a greater number of applications is received, applicants may be invited to consider forming consortia.

Bankers Order Facilities

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to publicise all the facilities


which it provides for accepting bankers orders.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a commercial matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Carter-Jones: is the Minister aware that vast sums of public money—worth-while expenditure—have been put into Giro? Is he also aware that the joint stock bank branches say openly to customers that this existing facility does not exist, and will he please do something about it?

Mr. Chataway: I am not aware of that but I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Telecommunications (Investment)

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what, when he took office, were the forecasts of investment on telecommunications for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973, respectively; and what they are today at constant prices.

Mr. Chataway: The forecasts at constant prices in 1970 were: for 1971–72, £478 million, for 1972–73, £507 million and for 1973–74, £522 million. The latest forecasts are £462 million, £498 million and £511 million, respectively. The slight changes are due to the introduction of economies of design and a more realistic assessment of delivery dates for new types of equipment.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that he has replied to Questions in this House by saying that the investment forecasts of the Labour Government were inadequate to meet demands, and that today he has announced reductions in those estimates which surely must make the situation very much worse in terms of the waiting list as it is today?

Mr. Chataway: It was not the forecasts of the previous Government which were inadequate to meet demands. It was the capacity that they left behind them which was inadequate to meet demands. There is no element here of restriction on the part of the Government. The Post Office investment programmes have been met in full. The reduction is due in part to the fact that there have been considerable delays and development difficulties with new types

of exchange equipment and also, commendably, due to the fact that the Post Office has been able to achieve substantial economies of design.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that, when we have put these questions to him over past months, he has constantly put the investment point to us instead of answering the point that we have put to him that it is the delay in delivery of exchange equipment and so forth about which we are concerned? In view of the representations which have been made to the Minister by the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. about the need to increase investment to combat unemployment, which we are told will be announced tomorrow at a level of more than 1 million, should he not try to persuade the Post Office to accelerate its programme for investment both on the telecommunications side and on postal mechanisation?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, to this small extent that I have shown today, the previous forecasts were unrealistic. The telecommunications investment programme has already contributed to the bringing forward of the £100 million investment recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the possibility of further acceleration is being considered.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. Booth: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to provide subscriber trunk dialling facilities in industrial towns of over 50,000 population in development areas.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. I understand from the Post Office that very few areas are still without S.T.D. facilities.

Mr. Booth: Is the Minister aware that Lister's works in Barrow has suffered up to 80 per cent. of its telephone calls being cut off? Is he aware, further, that this firm won the Queen's Award for exports and is having to operate under a serious handicap? Is it reasonable that a firm in a development area should be asked to pay a quarterly charge exceeding £100 to have two S.T.D. lines installed? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Barrow exchange is outdated, worn out and overloaded? Will he give priority to the installation of an S.T.D. system?

Mr. Chataway: These are management matters for the Post Office. But I am told that the Barrow exchange, which is one of the very few not on S.T.D., is to have its automatic exchange in operation by about the middle of 1973.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to improve the efficiency of the accountancy system of the subscriber trunk dialling telephone service in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This is a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are concerned about the accuracy of their telephone bills and that too many subscribers wrongly accept them, relying on the accuracy of the bills provided by the Post Office? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the present situation and with the efficiency of the Post Office accounting system? To give one example within my own experience, a mistake was made by adding £30 to my London telephone bill last quarter. The explanation was that it had been due to a misreading of the meter. I wonder how many other subscribers have suffered in a similar way without questioning their bills.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office has taken the precaution of telling me of the very unfortunate error in my hon. Friend's account. It assures me that a wide variety of checks are built into the billing processes to minimise error.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will the Minister at least look into this matter? Where, owing to the inefficiency of the S.T.D. system, it is necessary to ask the operator to put through a call, one is required to pay the full three-minute trunk call charge. Ought a subscriber to be penalised because the Post Office has been inefficient?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that that is a point which will be taken into account, though the hon. Gentleman probably can envisage the kind of operational difficulties which might be involved in arranging for a three-minute call to be billed on a different basis. There is this assurance for any subscriber: that if he is dissatisfied with the system of billing or its

operation, he can go to the users' council with his complaint.

Christmas Mail

Sir E. Bullus: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many letters and parcels were dealt with during the Christmas period; and how these figures compare with the previous year.

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office tells me that the provisional total for last Christmas was 910 million compared with 994 million for the previous year.

Sir E. Bullus: While congratulating the Post Office on its organisation, may I ask whether this smaller volume does not reflect the effect of the increase in postal charges? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if possible, he should defer any proposed increase in the future for some months at any rate?

Mr. Chataway: The decline is due to a number of factors. However, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, it must be due in part to the large tariff increases at the beginning of last year. I agree that that is a factor which must be taken into account by the Government and the Post Office when considering any future tariff increases.

Radio Reception (Ipswich Area)

Mr. Money: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what changes there have been in the standard of reception for B.B.C. Radio 1 in the Ipswich area.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot yet offer any prospects of improving reception of Radio 1 in the Ipswich area.

Mr. Money: I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy of his reply. Will he bear in mind, however, that my constituents are getting a little tired of continuously being written off as a "mush" area and of being bombarded by bandit radio from Albania?

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the dissatisfaction of my hon. Friend's constituents. There is continuing interference from Albania during the hours of darkness in that area and, as yet, there is nothing that we have been able to do about it.

Television (Mid-Wales)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what estimate has been made of the cost of subsidising piped television services to towns in Mid-Wales which have poor reception under the present relay system.

Mr. Chataway: I understand that in 1969 the capital cost of a wired distribution system was estimated at £25 to £75 per household, depending on the location. This would be more expensive than the present conventional broadcasting.

Mr. Hooson: As the Minister has refused to provide additional relay facilities in the area and as many people are unable to receive any channel properly and most can receive only one waveband, is it not time that something was done and might not this proposal be the most economical way of doing it?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. My information is that it would be even more expensive than the conventional method. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that to provide broadcasting facilities in that area might involve a capital cost of up to £20 per household, compared with a cost of a few pence for the rest of the country.

Mr. Hooson: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations have been made to him regarding television reception in the Mid-Wales area.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. and learned Member has sent me two letters and put down three previous Questions. One other hon. Member has written to me and put down a Question and one member of the public wrote to me.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister aware that a delegation from local authorities in Mid-Wales recently met Members of all political parties in the House? Is he further aware that television reception is exceptionally bad in that area? Does he intend that the people of Mid-Wales should continue to suffer bad television reception when they pay the same licence fee as people in other parts of the country?

Mr. Chataway: I am anxious to extend the coverage of television just as far and

as fast as is possible. I have already explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman the difficulties in that particular area. I do not believe there would be any attraction in a differential licence fee. It would not be a system which in the long run would help those in the least populated areas.

Broadcasting Licence Evasion

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what loss of revenue occurred in 1971 due to combined television and broadcasting licences evasion; what estimate he has made of diminishing loss in 1972; and what additional methods of detection he now proposes.

Mr. Chataway: One million one hundred thousand evaders at 31st October, 1971, represented a loss of revenue of approximately £8.4 million. I am determined to bring this figure significantly down during the current campaign. Computerisation of the licensing system will lead to greater efficiency, making it easier to reduce evasion and keep it at a substantially lower level than hitherto.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend closed his mind to changing this wretched system which has resulted accumulatively in tens of millions of pounds being lost over the years and to which evidently no Minister is able to put a stop? Why not attach the licence fee for the whole length of life of television to a set on first sale with suitable arrangements for dealing with secondhand sets? It can be done easily by the retail machinery without going on with this expensive Post Office jiggery-pokery.

Mr. Chataway: My mind is not closed to alternatives but the disadvantage with that suggestion, which is one among many which have been considered, is that it would add enormously to the cost on sale.

Mr. Bob Brown: Does the Minister accept that he ought now to provide a concessionary licence fee for old-age pensioners? Otherwise an increasing proportion of the 1 million evaders will be old-age pensioners. Is he going to add to their misery by putting them into court?

Sir G. Nabarro: What about the blind?

Mr. Chataway: The concession to old-age pensioners would have to be met either from general taxation or by an increased licence fee to be paid by others. The view of the Government, as of previous Governments, is that benefits in kind of this sort are not the best way to help.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware how very strongly elderly people feel about this matter and that those in warden-controlled old people's dwellings already get televisison for the payment of a shilling a week? It is not beyond the capacity of the country to bear the sum of roughly £25 million which the concessionary rate for old-age pensioners would entail.

Mr. Chataway: The sum of £25 million would involve a substantial cut-back in the services of the B.B.C., an increase in the licence fee for all other subscribers of about £2 or, if the cost were met out of taxation, the forgoing of other substantial services.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that we regard the loss of £8 million on licence dodging as unacceptably high? We would join with him in any means he can find to cut down this figure substantially. In view of the importance of this matter and the figures involved, will he assure us that when the campaign closes in the spring of this year he will come back to the House not only to give the results but with a few suggestions for dealing with the problem? I do not suggest that he should tell us the methods of detection, as suggested by his hon. Friend. However, if he would give an indication in his report, we should be grateful.

Mr. Chataway: A vigorous campaign is being conducted at the moment. I will do what I can to meet the hon. Gentleman's request.

First-class Mail

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of first-class letters is now being delivered by the following day.

Mr. Chataway: The latest Post Office figures show that about 94 per cent. of first-class letters are delivered on the next working day after posting.

Mr. Price: Is that not a remarkable figure which provides a devastating answer to those of the Minister's hon. Friends who spend half their time attacking the Post Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of the other 6 per cent. which could not be delivered by the following day was due to the run-down over the years of British Rail services making it a physical impossibility?

Mr. Chataway: This is a good figure. It represents a substantial improvement from the middle of last year and the immediate aftermath of the Post Office strike. The hon. Gentleman is right that of the 6 per cent. a high proportion is accounted for by letters travelling long distances or on cross-country routes or which are unable to be delivered on Saturday mornings because business premises are closed.

Mr. Gorst: Regardless of the fact that six letters in every 100 are not getting through, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some firms are spending lavishly on very sophisticated automated equipment for the mailing of letters so that they arrive the following day and that it is an extremely difficult situation for the business community when it finds that its efforts to speed up letters are negated by the failure of the Post Office to deliver 100 per cent. of first-class letters on time?

Mr. Chataway: I assure my hon. Friend that no postal service anywhere will ever deliver 100 per cent. on the following day, for the reasons I have given. But the Post Office is by no means satisfied even with the figure that it has achieved, and it hopes to do better.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) is absolutely right when he said that the answer which he had just given was a remarkable commendation on the efficiency of the Post Office staff? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, if he accepts the recommendation to abolish the second delivery in residential areas, this figure will take a dramatic change for the worse?

Mr. Chataway: As I have said, the Post Office Users National Council will be commenting on that shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing Revenue Accounts (Rate Fund Contributions)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount paid in rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts for each year since 1945.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that rate fund contributions since 1945 have, in the main, been used to keep rates down, whereas under the provisions of the new Housing Finance Bill rate fund contributions will in future be used to offset reduced Government subsidies? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, what is even worse, that some of the money from rate fund contributions by all ratepayers will finish in the Chancellor's lap?

Mr. Channon: I know that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the fair rents principle, but the Government propose to have a fair rents system, introduced by the Labour Party, so that those who can afford to pay a fair rent will do so and that those who cannot will be helped, very often for the first time.

Following is the information:

Rate fund contributions to Housing Revenue Accounts in England and Wales:



£ million


1945–46
5


1946–47
6


1947–48
7


1948–49
8


1949–50
9


1950–51
10


1951–52
11


1952–53
13


1953–54
15


1954–55
16


1955–56
18


1956–57
17


1957–58
18


1958–59
17


1959–60
16


1960–61
18


1961–62
21


1962–63
20


1963–64
21


1964–65
25


1965–66
34


1966–67
38


1967–68
39


1968–69
45

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Channel Tunnel.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Yes, Sir, at the right time.

Mr. Sheldon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least coming to the Box on this matter. It is the first time, to my knowledge, that he has done so. Does he agree that if hon. Members are not given this basic information about the flow level, about which I have put down many Questions to his Department, they will be denied the basic opportunity of following the work on the Channel Tunnel? This is a serious matter. Hon. Members are completely in the dark whether this is a good or a bad scheme, because information provided in 1963 has not been updated.

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, before final decisions are taken, I will see that hon. Members have available all the most updated information.

Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that our state of uncertainty about the project contrasts oddly with the virtual certainty which is felt in Europe that it will happen and that the sooner he can give a firm assurance about what is planned and when it will happen, the more people will have removed from them the doubts from which they are now suffering?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The view of both the French and ourselves is that, subject to no disclosures being made in the final research stages of the project, it is likely to go ahead. Both the French and ourselves are accelerating in every possible way to the point where we can make a positive decision on this topic.

Local Authority Rents (Regional Differentials)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the present regional differentials in local authority average rent levels, and how these have changed compared to five and 10 years ago, respectively.

Mr. Channon: For information on council rents I would refer the hon. Member to the annual "Housing Statistics" of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, copies of which are available in the Library.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that areas with low rents will produce most surplus when the rents are raised to fair rent levels and that areas with high rents already close to the fair rent level will still require Government help to pay their rebate bills? Will he acknowledge that a system which transfers not only subsidies but surpluses from poor to rich areas is the exact opposite of a "Fair Deal for Housing"?

Mr. Channon: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At present rents are fixed by reference to the state of the housing account and tend to be higher in those areas with the greatest housing problems due to the correspondingly higher rate of housing expenditure. Under our proposals rents will be fixed solely on the basis of the fair rental value of the dwellings.

Rented Accommodation (Landlords' Delegations)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to exercise his discretion regarding seeing delegations from landlords' associations and property companies dealing in rented accommodation accompanied by Members of Parliament.

Mr. Channon: In relation to any such requests concerning the Housing Finance Bill the associations would be asked to put their views in writing.

Mr. Allaun: But as nearly 8 million families are affected by the Government's rent proposals, is it not flouting democracy not to see their accredited representatives? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these leaders are becoming infuriated by his cowardice and that of his colleague in refusing to meet them on such a vital and unprecedented Measure, because it did not happen under previous Ministers of either side?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman's Question relates to landlords' associations and property companies. I am

interested to know that that is the representation he would wish us to see.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would have no objection to his meeting representatives of landlords, because birds of a feather do flock together? Is he also aware that representatives of council tenants, who have repeatedly requested meetings with himself and his colleagues, do not find the letter which he sent in reply to them, however long and elegantly penned it may be, an adequate substitute for the face-to-face confrontation for which they have repeatedly asked?

Mr. Channon: The practice of not seeing tenants' associations is one on which both sides of the House are in accord. Previous Governments have taken precisely the same line. If hon. Members wish to see my right hon. Friend or myself, we shall always be delighted to see them.

Richmond Terrace/New Scotland Yard Area

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make a statement on the future of the Richmond Terrace/New Scotland Yard area.

Mr. Channon: I refer my hon. Friend to the answers my right hon. Friend gave on 10th and 24th November, 1971.—[Vol. 825, c. 157; Vol. 826, c. 371.]

Mr. Allason: A long time has elapsed since then. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us something fairly soon. When he does tell us something, will he take into account the view of Big Ben from Trafalgar Square, which would have been entirely obliterated by the proposed building of the previous Administration?

Mr. Channon: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I shall take note of his views before any decision is announced. I hope that a decision will be announced in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Crosland: Is not this assuming some element of pure farce? Will the hon. Gentleman say for how long he has had the inspector's report of the inquiry in his hands? Has he not had it for more than a year, if not a year and half, and


is not this a unique delay between the receipt of a report and even the publication of it, let alone an announcement of the Government's decision?

Mr. Channon: Publication and decision have to be co-ordinated. I accept that the report was received a considerable time ago. This is a very important area and it is vital to get the decision right. That is why it has taken some time.

Railway Workshops

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a general direction to the British Railways Board to take no action to implement their recent announcement regarding railway workshop cut-backs and closures involving redundancies.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): No, Sir.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that that is a most cruel and unsatisfactory answer? Is he further aware that if British Railways persist in their present policy, with spin-offs about 7,000 will be added to the unemployment queue, 1,300 of whom live in my constituency? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer, particularly bearing in mind the great need for up-to-date wagons in particular, 6 per cent. of which will not be able to travel on fitted trains at 60 m.p.h. even after modernisation in 1975?

Mr. Griffiths: No one likes redundancies or unemployment, but the British Railways Board cannot be expected to retain workshop capacity for which it sees no future need.

Mr. Adley: On the whole question of the attitude of the board and how it reaches decisions, is my hon. Friend aware that at the moment it looks as though a decision is about to be taken by the board following representations from the Lord Mayor of Cardiff and South Wales Members, of all parties, and the board has given no opportunity to Members from England, particularly the South-West, to make similar representations? Will my hon. Friend ensure that political decisions of this nature are not taken without the board hearing fully and clearly both sides of the case?

Mr. Griffiths: The decision as to where British Railways headquarters should be located is for the board, and I can only suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that no part of the problem of unemployment in railway workshops is due to any direct action by the Government to discourage these workshops from taking orders from outside the railway service?

Mr. Griffiths: On the contrary, my right hon. Friend is most anxious that British Railways workshops should seek work wherever they can get it, both in this country and overseas.

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now arranged to consult with the British Railways Board regarding their requirement for Government assistance in order to maintain railway workshops at their present output capacity and staff levels.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is always prepared to discuss with the Chairman of British Railways any proposals which he might wish to bring forward.

Mr. Stoddart: I am glad to hear that the Minister will consider these proposals. Will he prod British Railways to get off their backside and produce some reasonable proposals?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend and I have complete confidence in the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Ashton: Has not one of the problems over the past few years been that the railways have subcontracted millions of pounds worth of work to private wagon repair depots, and that some of this is still continuing? Private wagon repair depots are being given work while British Railways depots are being closed down, particularly in the Tucksford and other Nottinghamshire areas. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this?

Mr. Griffiths: It is for British Railways engineering department and the Chairman of the British Railways Board to determine where best commercially to place their contracts. I hope that they will


continue to place them wherever they get the best value for money.

M1 (Crash Barrier)

Mr. Harper: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of crash barrier have now been erected on the central reservation of the M1 motorway; and what is the total cost.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Seventy-two miles at a total estimated cost of £634,193.

Mr. Harper: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he say what further tests have been made to these crash barriers, especially on the M1, where a tragic accident took place on 11th December in which a man and his wife were killed because the barriers were not strong enough to take the impact of a lorry travelling in the opposite direction? Does not the Minister think that a better and far wiser policy would be to erect barriers at a lower speed and make them more resistant to this kind of accident?

Mr. Page: That accident involved a 20-ton lorry crossing the barrier. At the present time barriers are not made to withstand that sort of impact. A thorough investigation is proceeding into the allegations which have been made in the Press about barriers on the M1, and I would rather wait until that investigation is completed before making any further statement. I give an undertaking that I shall report the result of the investigation to the House.

Building Regulations

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment from what organisations he has received representations in the past year seeking new or amended legislation with regard to the building regulations.

Mr. Channon: As the answer contains a list of names I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Moate: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Would he agree that there is some dissatisfaction amongst professional bodies about the regulations? Will he consider the suggestion that he should convene a conference to discuss

means whereby these regulations could be improved in the public interest?

Mr. Channon: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. I recognise that there is a widely held view in favour of improving the system of building controls by further legislation.

Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman say when he or his right hon. Friend will complete their review of thermal insulation in conection with the building regulations? Does he not agree that it is about time—it is nearly 10 years since they were fixed in 1963—a major improvement was undertaken to bring this country into line with other countries?

Mr. Channon: I hope that it will not be too long. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the exact date, perhaps he would be kind enough to put down a Question.

Following is the information:
Association of Municipal Corporations British Medical Association.
Concrete Society.
Confederation of British Industry Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors.
Institution of Civil Engineers.
Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers.
Institution of Municipal Engineers. Institution of Structural Engineers.
Joint Committee on Building Legislation Multiple Shops Federation.
Royal Institute of British Architects.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Planning Policy (Derbyshire)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will investigate complaints by Dale Abbey Parish Council and Stanley Parish Council relating to dissatisfaction with his Department's rôole in the overall planning policy in these two areas.

Mr. Graham Page: If my hon. Friend will let me have details of these complaints I will gladly investigate them.

Mr. Rost: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. There are so many inconsistent planning decisions that my hon. Friend will have a busy time. Will he look into the details which I shall send him of the inconsistencies, as the problem is causing considerable concern in this area? Some villages are in danger of dying, schools may have to


close down and other social services and amenities are threatened because of inconsistent planning decisions.

Mr. Page: I am not sure about the facts of the decision to which my hon. Friend refers but the local planning authority, in my hon. Friend's case the Derbyshire County Council, is primarily responsible for day-to-day planning control in the area, and I have no trace of any appeals from decisions which would affect the parishes to which my hon. Friend refers.

Motor Vehicles (Hire-Purchase Records)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that particulars of hire-purchase arrangements are recorded in car registration books.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: None, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Is not the Minister aware that grave difficulties are encountered by many people buying second-hand vehicles who are misled or deliberately deceived at the time of purchase? Is not action urgently necessary to protect the interests of such buyers?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is not up to date. This problem existed, but the Hire-Purchase Act, 1964, provided all the necessary safeguards.

Brighton-Portsmouth Railway

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him by British Rail concerning the closure of the Brighton—Portsmouth passenger service; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: None, Sir. As announced in my right hon. Friend's answer of 18th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), he has recently renewed grant aid for this service for a further year.—[Vol. 829, c. 160–3.]

Mr. Judd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he not understand that, in view of his overall responsibilities for regional development, we need much

longer-term reassurances for an area of such natural growth as this part of the South Coast?

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that my right hon. Friend should have provided a further grant to keep open this line. He will know that certain economies are being made. They are to be re-examined in the following year, and that is why the grant aid renewal is for one year only.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On the question of closures, will my hon. Friend note that British Railways have a great future, and take heed of the words of the Winchester town clerk who said that anyone who closed a railway line or any public transport in that area of great population growth qualified for a grave in Winchester Cathedral beside that of Ethelred the Unready?

Mr. Griffiths: It is for my hon. and gallant Friend to take heed of what his town clerk tells him. I always take heed of what my hon. and gallant Friend tells me.

South Shields (Riverside Industrial Sites)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to help speed up the preparation of major industrial sites on the riverside in South Shields and district.

Mr. Graham Page: Preparation of the two major industrial sites on the riverside in South Shields and in Jarrow and Hebburn is primarily a matter for the local authorities and the landowners, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 15th December. But I am anxious that both schemes should be started as soon as possible.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome that reply Does the Minister accept that this site, particularly the Jarrow Slake site, offers the best hope of attracting major industry into that area, where it is badly needed? Is there any real reason why a grant should not be available for the major reclamation work which is now just starting in the area?

Mr. Page: The real reason is that it does not fit in with the law as it is. Unfortunately, it is not a man-made


dereliction but dereliction in a tidal area. I wish that I could find some way to assist the hon. Gentleman and provide a grant, but it just does not fit in with the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

European Economic Community

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council to what extent following the Government's decision to enter the Common Market, the Clerk/Administrator has put in applications to recruit staff to deal with the 1,500 and more rules and regulations in the Vote Office; what was the decision of the Staff Board on these applications; what recommendations have been made to the Accounting Officer; and with what results.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): An application for the recruitment of additional staff to the Vote Office is still under consideration.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—surely he is—that he will have to get a move on? He knows that we both examined these orders, which it has taken the Government 12 months to produce, and that they are a pile almost 3 ft. high and weighing almost 1 cwt.? The staff in the Vote Office are rupturing themselves moving them for hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that something must be done, because hon. Members are now asking whether they can bring their cars into the House to collect these orders and the staff are objecting to having to get them all up to Members. Most hon. Members have not seen them. Will the right hon. Gentleman get on with the job to see that there is adequate staff in the Vote Office?

Mr. Whitelaw: However all that may be, it is very important, seriously, that, in questions of staff matters in this House, I should stick rigidly to the view stated by my distinguished predecessor, Lord Aylestone, on this matter; that it is not in the best interests of the staff that such matters dealing with their recruitment and other questions of their employment be dealt with by means of question and answer in this House.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he intends to place in the Vote Office for the use of hon. Members copies of the opinions and other documents referred to or incorporated in the English text of the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities.

Mr. Whitelaw: The instruments published in the pre-accession series of English texts were, before enactment by the Community, the subject of detailed consideration in the institutions of the Community and, where appropriate, reference is made in the instruments to the opinions expressed by those institutions. But the definitive result is contained in the substance of the instruments themselves.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend accept that to whoever else he may apply that argument, he cannot hope to apply it successfully to those who have practised in the law? Will he also accept that no document can be properly interpreted without reference to those documents which are specifically referred to therein? Will he please reconsider, if necessary in conjunction with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the propriety of his answer?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I would not wish in any way to cross swords with my right hon. and learned Friend in matters of the law, I will certainly look into what he suggests.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Leader of the House also consider adding to the documents the opinions given by Mr. Schumann when they directly contradict the interpretations given to the documents by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as happened, for example, at a Press conference in Brussels following the decision on the sugar producers' contribution? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any different interpretations of the documents should be made available to hon. Members before the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept either what the hon. Gentleman suggests or the premise on which he puts it forward.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman has done what he has promised to do in response to the request of his right hon. and learned Friend the


Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and has examined afresh his answer to this Question, may I ask him to say how, assuming that his right hon. and learned Friend is correct in this matter, he proposes to present these matters to the House? May we be told the general form in which they will be presented and the type of documents that will be laid? May we also be told what notice we shall receive before the documents are laid?

Mr. Whitelaw: That must await the further consideration which I have promised.

Visitors (Facilities)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for improving facilities for visitors to the House of Commons during the summer and autumn of 1972; and whether he will make arrangements for visitors queueing to enter the Chamber to view closed-circuit television.

Mr. Whitelaw: The question of access to the Palace of Westminster by constituents is under consideration by the Services Committee which will report in due course. The provision of closed-circuit television for visitors queueing to enter the Chamber must await the result of a debate on televising the proceedings of the House of Commons.

Mr. Dalyell: Would the shade of Lord Falkland mind very much if a television set were perched on his statue in St. Stephen's Hall, so that those waiting to come in should be able to know something of what is going on?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that the shade of Lord Falkland would mind, but many hon. Members who object to televising the proceedings of this House would mind very much.

Mr. Chapman: In this regard, would not my right hon. Friend look at the possibility of members of the public being able to use the other seats in the Galleries if they are vacant?

Mr. Whitelaw: In answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and to my hon. Friend, I would say that we should all be most anxious to do all we can to improve the facilities for those people who wish to visit the Palace of

Westminster. I am most anxious to do so, as is the Services Committee; our problem is largely one of space, but we will certainly do all we can to help.

Mr. Michael Foot: How speedily does the right hon. Gentleman think that the question of television both inside the House and outside can be brought before the House again for a decision? It is quite a long time since the matter was settled, and then only by a single vote. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should come forward with proposals at an early date for the House to be able to settle this question so that these facilities, if it is decided to do so, could be provided this summer for visitors.

Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I hope I made clear in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, the position of closed-circuit television for our visitors is inextricably bound up with the question of whether or not we televise our own proceedings in this House.

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I am technically advised that this is so. As for when I bring the matter forward for a debate, I am anxious to do so as soon as possible and I shall consult through the usual channels as to when this should be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will supply an authenticated English translation of the 1,500 rules, regulations, orders and edicts of the European Economic Community to the Press and general public in the normal way for non-parliamentary papers.

Mr. Whitelaw: The pre-accession series of English texts of secondary legislation of the European Communities was published on 13th January.

Mr. Lewis: May I pay a sincere tribute to the Leader of the House? I do not object to the fact that it has taken 12 months to get it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of this problem, because we have seen this pile of papers


and tried to carry it and both of us together could not carry it, it is so heavy. Is he aware that some hon. Members, particularly hon. Members of the opposite sex—[Laughter.]—opposite to me—want a conveyance to carry them away? How can we collect these papers to take them away? Not all hon. Members have cars. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. This pile is that high—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] They weigh half a cwt. and one just cannot get them away. Would the right hon. Gentleman supply hon. Members with a trolley or some other conveyance to get them out of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be fair to say that both the hon. Gentleman and I know something about weight. I should have thought that, on that basis, it was perfectly proper that I should suggest to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that, once they have been provided, how they care to remove these papers, if they wish to do so, is entirely a matter for them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am the Vice-President of the Vale of Evesham Asparagus Growers' Association—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]—and that members of the association would happily lighten this load for all hon. Members by abandoning completely those orders relating to asparagus?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on his important appointment, but that does not particularly apply to what we should do with these texts.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would the right hon. Gentleman make these rules and regulations available to the general public through the Post Office, as was done with the White Paper?

Mr. Whitelaw: It was asked that they should be made available in the Vote Office, and they are.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Post Office, not Vote Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORNWALL AND DEVON COAST (CHEMICALS)

Mr. Crosland: On a point of order. Yesterday the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) sought leave to

adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9 to enable a debate to take place on the topic of the threat to the Cornwall and Devon coast. You rejected that application, Mr. Speaker, as of course you are fully entitled to do.
However, the House as a whole expected—in saying this I have no wish to embarrass the Government or inhibit the efforts that are now being made—that at some point a statement on this critical matter would be made.
Apparently a junior Minister gave a Press conference yesterday on the subject, and a number of Ministerial statements have been made to the Press. If we are to judge from newspaper reports, the situation is, if anything, growing more complicated daily.
May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask, as this is probably the worst disaster or threat of one since the "Torrey Canyon". when the House might expect a statement from the Government?

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary yesterday met all hon. Members who represent Cornwall constituencies, from all parties, and obviously answered any questions they wished to put to him. My hon. Friend will tomorrow be visiting the various locations in Cornwall which are affected. I shall be making a statement after his visit.

RHODESIA

3.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
Since I last spoke in this House on Rhodesia, hon. and right hon. Members will have been concerned at the reports of violence from different parts of that country, especially in the Gwelo district.
It is in the Government's view essential that the Pearce Commission should be enabled to carry out its task of testing Rhodesian opinion in conditions free of intimidation and violence, in which normal political activities are possible.
Against this background, the House will have been concerned, too, to have received the news of the arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter and three others. On hearing the reports last night I immediately sent a personal message to Mr. Smith seeking to establish the facts behind these arrests.
In his reply Mr. Smith has said that they are cases of preventive detention arising from the internal security situation that has developed in the midlands area of Rhodesia during the last fortnight, under the 1970 Emergency Powers Regulations.
He has said that the reasons for detaining Mr. Todd and his daughter were not based on their publicly stated opposition to the settlement proposals, but that the decision was, on the contrary, taken solely on the grounds of security and the need to maintain law and order in Rhodesia, without which, as recent events in Gwelo have shown, it is not possible for the Pearce Commission to carry out its task.
It is, of course, for the Commission, which has the advantage of being on the spot, to satisfy itself that normal political activities are being permitted in Rhodesia, provided, as the proposals for a settlement make clear, that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. Lord Pearce, who has himself issued a statement in Salisbury expressing deep concern at these detentions, and has asked the Rhodesian Government for their reasons, will no doubt be considering the position in the light of Mr. Smith's reply and other information available to him in Salisbury.
I am arranging to send to Salisbury tonight the Head of the Rhodesia Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that he can, in consultation with our liaison officer there, and after discussion with all concerned, let me have an up-to-date assessment of the situation in the light of the recent events which have caused general concern.
In a matter of such importance I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say more about these arrests until I have received further full information from Rhodesia. I will keep the House informed.

Mr. Healey: May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and ask him for an assurance that he will make a further statement to the House tomorrow in the light of any information he may receive between now and then?
May we be told the names of the three Africans who have been arrested with Mr. Todd and his daughter? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends are not just concerned but are appalled by the arrest of Mr. Todd and his daughter, particularly against the background of the firm promise conveyed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman from Mr. Smith that normal political activities would be permitted throughout the period of consultation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Todd is one of the few Europeans in public life in Rhodesia who has won the confidence of the Africans, that he is an ex-Prime Minister aged 63, that Mr. Smith may have taken a step which will lead to the very violence that he purports to hope to avoid and that many of us will feel that this may well have been his purpose in carrying out the arrests, for it is already evident that all the evidence produced to the Pearce Commission by Africans in both the urban and tribal areas shows that there is overwhelming opposition to the proposals for a settlement?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I must rely entirely on newspaper reports for our understanding of what is happening in Rhodesia at this moment? Is he further aware that reports in newspapers which cannot be considered to be hostile to Her Majesty's Government—newspapers like the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times—make it clear, first, that all the shootings and bayonetings which have taken place in Rhodesia in recent days have been carried out by the security forces responsible to the Smith régime and not by the Africans; secondly, that the violence in Gwelo followed and did not precede the use of tear gas against a peaceful demonstration by Africans who were seeking to present their views to representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the Pearce Commission inside Gwelo; and, third, that all the newspaper reports show that representatives of the African National Council did their best.
even after the use of tear gas by the Rhodesia forces, to prevent the use of violence by the demonstrators?
Has the Pearce Commission yet had an answer to the question it put to the Smith régime almost a week ago about the complaints made by the African National Council of interference by the Smith régime in its attempted activities in the tribal and urban areas?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that unless Mr. Smith can produce satisfactory evidence that Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter and the three arrested Africans have already taken action calculated to disturb public order in Rhodesia, he will insist on their immediate release.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall make another statement as early as I can. As I said, Mr. Philip Mansfield, the head of the Rhodesia Political Department, flies out tonight. I cannot very well promise a statement tomorrow, but I will certainly make another statement as soon as I possibly can. As to the names of the Africans arrested, I will ascertain those and convey them to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have only just received the latest messages from Rhodesia and have been unable to obtain this detail.
As to the normal political activities, that is the whole purpose—to try to create conditions in which normal political activities can be carried out. The duty of the Pearce Commission is to take opinion from the great body of Rhodesians, African, Asian and European. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Pearce Commission has to look beyond and beneath the attitudes of the minorities, of the right and the left, who are both dedicated to trying to destroy this settlement. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that minorities in Rhodesia, both right and left, are trying to do their best to destroy this settlement. As to the complaints that Lord Pearce has made to Mr. Smith, it is for Lord Pearce to judge Mr. Smith's replies, and for Lord Pearce to decide whether the Commission can carry on with its work.

Mr. Hastings: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to em-

phasise the appalling consequences for Rhodesia and all her peoples should this opportunity be lost through disaster, from whatever source it may stem? Second, would he agree that normal political activity, as we understand it in Britain, is very difficult either to define or apply in central Africa, particularly in the light of recent experience of other parts of the African continent?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have emphasised time and again how terribly dangerous it is to condone violence in any part of Africa and most of all now in Rhodesia.—[Interruption.] Those who have advocated violence as a political solution carry a great responsibility. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that I only received the information a moment or two before I came to the House. The names of the Africans are Mr. Elias Hananda, Mr. Edward Kumaio and Mr. Enos Choga.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the consequences of the arrests made by Mr. Smith is that it prevents Mr. Todd from carrying out his visit to London next week to address meetings and take part in broadcasts to give the reaction of the Africans in Rhodesia to the settlement? Is he further aware that if it is the case that Mr. Smith's interpretation of allowing normal political activities is that only individuals may appear before the Pearce Commission to express their opposition to the settlement but that no one may organise collective opposition through meetings and the like, that is not an interpretation acceptable to Her Majesty's Government and this House? It is the responsibility of this Government, and not the Pearce Commission, to determine whether this is right. If that is the case, it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to recall the Pearce Commission.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We selected responsible people to serve on the Pearce Commission, and very experienced people too, and it is for them to say whether they can work in these conditions or not.

Sir G. Sinclair: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will welcome his prompt action in sending a personal emissary to Rhodesia to find


out how far free expression of opinion is being allowed? There seems to be a great difference in the assessments in this country and in the eyes of the Rhodesian front of what normal political activity amounts to. I believe that it is not only the Pearce Commission that needs to be convinced about normal activity and that it can consult African opinion in Rhodesia in these conditions, but this House and the British people as well need to be convinced on this issue. I hope that, through the emissary who is going to Rhodesia tonight, my right hon. Friend will report the misgivings in this country about the sort of political freedom which will detain, at a time when he ought to be consulted, a former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, and make clear that this is not something we shall easily accept.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We deeply regret both the violence and the reaction to violence. I personally deeply regret this. It has happened. I suggest that it must be for the Pearce Commission, which is on the spot, to decide whether it can carry on with its work. I repeat, it is for the Pearce Commission to take soundings of the great mass of Rhodesian opinion, and noisy minorities seldom represent the opinion of a country.

Mr. Judd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his strictures about violence ring a little hollow when it is clear to the rest of the African continent, and indeed to the world, that the violence has been enshrined by the whole political system of the United Front in Rhodesia? Would not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the question being asked throughout the Commonwealth at present is how we can possibly have any confidence in a settlement with this particular régime in the light of its conduct during the last few days?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is violence in many countries in Africa, and it takes various forms. We have seen one case just last week, not directed in any way against a white population or white government. We have to be very reticent before we generalise about this.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: For a true test of opinion, is it not essential that there should be freedom from violence and freedom from intimidation from any

quarter in Rhodesia? As to the means of securing those ends, should not we await accurate information from my right hon. Friend's emissary rather than rely on what has been read in the newspapers by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whose whole conduct shows his determination to wreck a settlement? In view of the dire consequences of a failure of my right hon. Friend's efforts to reach a settlement, would it not now be better if all evidence were given to the Pearce Commission in private so that Africans, of whatever colour or opinion, can be quite sure, that they will not be subject to terrorism because of the opinions that they hold?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Whatever opinion we may have of the proposed terms of settlement, I should have thought that there was common opinion in this House that the Pearce Commission should be allowed to conduct its business in calm and peaceful conditions —that is my sole interest—and that normal political rights should be able to be quickly restored. In response to my hon. Friend, I think that the Pearce Commission must decide what evidence it takes in private and what in public. I understand that it is doing both.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The whole House will be concerned about the difficulties in which this Commission is now trying to operate, difficulties caused in this case by the activities of the present régime in Rhodesia. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is mounting evidence that the Commission is not operating as some of us hoped it would, in that, for example, one of its members is reported—I hope wrongly—as answering an African who said, "Why cannot we have our leaders to explain it to us?", by saying, "We are seeing your leaders", which is not true in the case of Mr. Sithole? Will the right hon. Gentleman insist that the Commission sees all the African leaders? Second, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are a little concerned about two of his remarks this afternoon. I am sure that on consideration he will perhaps suggest that we have misinterpreted them. Twice he used the phrase "destroy the settlement", when he said that the Commission's task was to get behind minorities on either side who are seeking to destroy the settlement. The right hon.


Gentleman originally proposed the idea of the fifth principle, as I proposed the idea of a commission in 1965. Does he not recognise that the task of the Commission is not to deal with those who want to destroy the settlement but to see whether the proposed terms are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole?
Further, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to refer—I hope that I got him wrong—to the arrests of Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter and others as a reaction to violence; that was the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used. Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that they had any responsibility for violence other than peacefully saying in Rhodesia, as they have a right to do, what they feel about the terms of the settlement?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a police State in which the Commission is operating. If I used the phrase first, it was echoed by the present Prime Minister from this Box. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we in this House have a responsibility for the Commission's ability to function and for our decision after the Commission has reported. The last thing I would want to do in this situation would be to propose the recall of the Commission; I think that would be a fairly general feeling throughout the House. The Commission must be allowed to work.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of his being an apologist on the Dingle Foot case and on the question of the Labour Party mission, he should remember that the legal responsibility for Rhodesia adheres in this House and in Her Majesty's Government, that he is dealing with an illegal régime operating a police State, and that he should do more than just report what that State tells him and should assert what this House must insist on.
Finally, if this is how Mr. Smith behaves at a time when one would expect him to be trying to put the best face on his Rhodesian Front and when he should be behaving himself so as to get a favourable report and attitude in this country, what guarantee is there that he will not tear up the agreement if it is arrived at?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition agrees that we should all try to maintain the

Pearce Commission in Rhodesia. To do that, the Commission must be able to operate in conditions which are satisfactory to the Commission.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman cannot quite have heard what I said. Of course the function of the Commission is to assess the opinion of all the people in Rhodesia. All that I was saying was that there have been minorities on both sides who have been out to wreck a settlement. This is not the concern of the Commission. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman had been with me in Salisbury and had heard the minorities—left and right—arguing, he would realise that there are some such elements. At any rate, the business of the Commission is to assess the opinion of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. That is its sole concern.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Dingle Foot. I said—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here then—that I very much regretted the rejection of Sir Dingle Foot's application. Now the Africans are to be represented by Mr. Sheridan, who has represented Rhodesians on many other occasions on appeals in the courts. However, I certainly regret that Sir Dingle Foot was not able to go there.

Mr. Lane: The steps which have already been taken by my right hon. Friend will certainly be welcomed, but will he also make it clear that the Government will take up vigorously with Mr. Smith any request they may receive from the Commission for help in securing conditions for the test of acceptability?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Is it not the fact that among the reasons given by the Smith régime for the arrest of Mr. and Miss Todd there is reference to incitement to violence? Does the Foreign Secretary believe, or does anybody believe, that either of these two people would engage in incitement to violence? If it is true, as the Smith régime apparently suggests, that ordinary political activity by these two people would result in violence, does not this make it clear beyond doubt that the whole régime is rotten from top to bottom?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: What Mr. Smith said was that the decision was


taken solely on considerations of security and the maintenance of law and order in Rhodesia. The implication of that may be as the right lion. Gentleman said.

Mr. Evelyn King: Was not an obligation rightly placed upon Mr. Ian Smith to preserve peaceful political conditions? Does it not follow from that that it is his function to keep the peace? Must not we in the House accept what must follow from that—that, if Mr. Smith is to keep the peace. some degree of security must be exercised by him, that that may sometimes involve arrest, and that he cannot maintain that function unless he carries that out?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In order that there should be normal political conditions in which the Pearce Commission can work, obviously there must be law and order; but I must not in any way be held to condone what Mr. Smith has done in this context.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Foreign Secretary be a little more sensitive to his own responsibilities in this matter; because it appears to the House that we are moving now from farce to tragedy? Or will he be stimulated to effective action and assert the authority of the House only when Lord Pearce has been taken into detention?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will certainly agree to the right hon. Gentleman's plea that I should show sensitivity, but I hope, too, that he will not be frivolous in this very serious matter.

Mr. Cormack: Bearing in mind the acute concern that is felt in all quarters of the House, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to sending out a small commission of not more than two or three back benchers who could be attached to the Pearce Commission as observers?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have made a suggestion—I do not know what the response will be—that there should be an all-party delegation from the House to observe the work of the Pearce Commission.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the phrase he has used about minorities? How does he know

that only minorities oppose the settlement? He is so anxious to get a settlement that anyone who opposes it must, in his view, be in a minority and be prone to violence. The very question which the Pearce Commission has been sent out to determine he constantly begs by saying that only minorities oppose the settlement.
On the question of force or violence, Rhodesia is a police State; and unfortunately police States depend upon force. Is he telling the House that he thinks that Mr. Smith is guaranteeing free political expression in Rhodesia just now and that the arrest of Mr. Todd and his daughter was because they were advocating force?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, I am not saying that. I have not the facts on which to make any such statement. What I am saying is that it is the job of the Pearce Commission to ascertain the opinion of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. When I say that there are some minorities on the right and on the left opposed to the settlement, I know this to be true; I talked to them and I know. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks how I know that they are minorities. They were minorities when they were talking to me, because the great mass of people were prepared to consider these matters. [Interruption.] The Pearce Commission may find that all the people of Rhodesia are against the settlement. It may find that all the people are for it. Some people on the right and on the left in Rhodesia have said publicly that they wish to destroy the settlement.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that he regrets the exclusion of Sir Dingle Foot. On other questions, he has just taken note of what he has been told. Will not he assert with the regime the position of this House and the position of Her Majesty's Government, as I hope it is? Is he just going to act as an apologist on all these questions—on the question of the Labour Party mission as well as an all-party mission? Is he really just sending a message to Mr. Smith and then conveying the answer back, if Mr. Smith has the courtesy to send one? Does not he realise that under the law—and he did not answer this question—he is responsible, by a decision of this House


made as recently as last November, for the conduct of affairs in Rhodesia, and that this responsibility was confirmed by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council two or three years ago, so far as his writ runs? Even if that were not so, if he has been negotiating with Mr. Smith, has he no standing arising from that? Since the agreement has not yet been ratified by this House and has not yet been approved by the Commission as coming under the fifth principle, does not the right hon. Gentleman as a negotiator feel able to say something in the matter of Sir Dingle Foot, in the matter of the Labour Party mission, in the matter of the arrests without his having been given the evidence on which they are based—has he even asked for that? In all these matters it is no good his wringing his hands like a tuppenny-ha'penny washerwoman. Will he act like a Secretary of State?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is—and this is not unusual—being less than fair—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has made an attack, and I must be allowed to answer this. He will very well remember the hangings in Rhodesia and the reply he had to give to the House:
 It is true, as we all recognise that we had no ability to stop these hangings …". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1628.]
That was under the right hon. Gentleman and his own Government. His right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said later:
 Britain has responsibility for Rhodesia without power inside Rhodesia. History made Rhodesia a legal and moral British responsibility, but as history has turned out we have been denied the physical power to control events on the ground … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 1096.]
What I am trying to do is to make the most of the remaining influence that Britain has and keeps, and through that influence—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman delivered an attack, and I must in fairness be allowed to answer it. I want through that influence to try to help the Africans in a way in which they can never be helped otherwise.

Mr. Chapman: That there are grave misgivings on both sides of the House over the events in Rhodesia in the past 72 hours, there can be no doubt. Is not the critically important thing at present that Lord Pearce and his fellow members of the Commission should be asked to make the earliest statement on whether they think they are being inhibited in any way in carrying out the difficult functions entrusted to them, and that those functions should include the right to see anyone in Rhodesia and the right of anyone in Rhodesia to make representations to it at the earliest opportunity?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I think that Lord Pearce is in the best position of all to do that.

Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the minorities whom he saw, how does he know that some of them were not a majority? How does he know that they were only minorities? Is he suggesting that minorities have no rights to express their opinions?

An Hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman is twisting it.

Mr. Driberg: Not at all. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to the House that the Pearce Commission will be allowed privately to see Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter should that be desired?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no reason to think that should Mr. Garfield Todd wish to see the Commission any obstacle would be put in the way. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will not over-emphasise this business of minorities. I do not know what is a minority and what is not in Rhodesia, any more than—[Interruption.] All I do know is that there are people at both extremes who wish to wreck the settlement. That is perhaps a better way to put it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is not it a fact that whether we like it or not Mr. Ian Smith has de facto responsibility for law and order in Rhodesia under present conditions to enable the Pearce Commission to operate properly and to preserve the lives and property of all races in


Rhodesia? Therefore, is not it reasonable that Mr. Ian Smith should have a large say about who is at liberty in Rhodesia and who is not, and which people from Britain, including Members of this House, should visit Rhodesia, if those people are dedicated to the failure of the settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said, some people are in favour of the settlement—I am, naturally—and Labour right hon. and hon. Members are against it. But we are both interested in seeing the Pearce Commission having a fair run and being able to do its job. I should have thought that everyone could join in that. Therefore, we want to see conditions restored in which it can do the job well. It is for Lord Pearce to say and judge whether it can carry on with the task.

Miss Lestor: As the right hon. Gentleman said that extremists on both sides were trying to wreck a settlement, will he ask the representative of the Foreign Office who is flying to Rhodesia to find out how many of the people who have been shot, bayonetted, arrested or detained were demonstrating for or advocating acceptance of the settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot answer the hon. Lady, because I do not know whether anybody could find out whether they were demonstrating in favour of the settlement or against it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, I should like to make a statement about allocation of frequency channels for a fourth television network and about control of the number of hours of television and radio broadcasting.
For many years to come, frequency channels will be available only for four television networks of near-national coverage. Channels for three of those networks are already being deployed, and therefore only one network remains to be

allocated. The Independent Television Authority recently put to me a submission, "I.T.V. 2", published on 8th December, advocating that this network should now be allocated to a second service to be provided by I.T.V. The I.T.A.'s proposals have prompted the expression of a number of different views in Parliament and elsewhere concerning, for example, the possibility of reserving the fourth network for a specialised service or of organising a fourth general service on some different basis. I am not persuaded that the time has yet come to allocate the fourth network.
The Authority has also asked for an end to the restrictions at present imposed on the number of hours of television broadcasting. This would allow the fuller use of I.T.V.'s programme-making capacity. It would enable the Authority to meet more adequately the needs of certain minorities, such as shift workers, and to provide greater opportunities for experimental programmes. The Authority has made it clear that it would not allow any fall in the amount of time given to educational, Welsh-language and other programmes exempt from the present limits. I have therefore decided to end the restrictions on hours of television broadcasting. Similarly, I have decided to lift the present limits on the number of hours of radio broadcasting.

Mr. Richard: I think that this is the third time in the past five or six weeks that I have congratulated the right lion. Gentleman on a statement he has made. We on this side of the House regard his decision not to allot the fourth television channel to the Independent Television Authority as timely and right.
However, I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman on two further points in relation to that decision. First, does it mean that there will be no allocation of the fourth channel before 1976, when the charter of the B.B.C. and the Television Act come up for further consideration? Secondly, does he now accept the necessity for a major review of the whole of broadcasting before 1976? If he does. would not it be a good idea if he set it up in the relatively near future?
I welcome that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement dealing with the end of the restriction on the hours of television broadcasting.

Mr. Chataway: I have made it clear I do not believe the case is made out for the allocation of this channel at this moment, but I would not wish to prescribe the number of years ahead for which the community should not have this service. As for the question of an inquiry dealing with the period after 1976 when the present B.B.C. Charter and I.T.V. licence run out, I have said on a number of occasions that clearly we shall need, nearer to the time, to take a comprehensive look at the options open to us. I do not believe that the interests of anyone, least of all those in broadcasting, would be served if we had six years of inquiry, as the Opposition were proposing when they set up a Commission in 1970.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the extension of the hours of television will be broadly welcomed but that there will be some disappointment about the decision not to proceed with a second independent channel? Is he aware that the very cogent arguments prepared by tile I.T.A. formed the one practical and realistic method of getting a second independent television channel? Will he confirm that in his continuing review process he will not close his mind to this idea?

Mr. Chataway: I would be the last to deny the attractions that my hon. Friend sees in the I.T.V.2 proposals. That was a case very well argued. I know that there are many differing views about the way in which the channel ought to be allocated, even if it goes to I.T.A. In those circumstances it is right in view of the other factors I have mentioned that the channel should not be allocated at this moment.

Mr. Mayhew: The Minister began by referring to the limited number of channels available. Is he aware of the growing recognition in many western countries of the advantages of transmission by cable which not only brings about much better reception but keeps down repair charges, means less disfigurement of rooftops and the skyline and, above all, gives an almost unlimited number of channels for different uses? May we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman is really studying this?

Mr. Chataway: It may well be that at a period in the future transmission

by cable will play a big part and perhaps transform the broadcasting scene. In the meantime there is value in conducting a number of limited experiments in cable service, one of which I have announced earlier today.

Mr. Maude: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to postpone the allocation of this channel and may I ask him to bear in mind that there is an increasing number of people who believe that what this country suffers from is not a lack but a surfeit of television and there should be no hurry to increase it?

Mr. Chataway: It was the divergency of views on this matter, among other things, which led the Government to this view.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the Minister's decision, may I ask him whether he is aware that many areas in the country do not yet receive a second or third channel? If there is not to be a fourth channel would he see whether the reception in these areas can be improved and coverage extended? Can he be a little more explicit about the inquiries? Is there a firm Government undertaking that there will be a major inquiry before renewal of the Charter and the I.T.A. arrangements in 1976?

Mr. Chataway: Dealing with the extended coverage. I am anxious that the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. should press on as fast as they can with that. There is no doubt that if there had been a second I.T.V. channel at this time it might have delayed that process. On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, clearly the Government will, nearer to the time when decisions have to be taken on the post-1976 situation, have to review all these questions in some way. There is no need at this time to take a view about the kind of review that might be most appropriate.

Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend review the mathematics about this inquiry and the answer that he has given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? Will he bear in mind that, for example, Beveridge and Pilkington needed 18 months for an inquiry and there was the subsequent legislation? In view of that, would he


not agree that this year will be none too soon to inaugurate the overall inquiry that will be needed into broadcasting?

Mr. Chataway: I certainly take note of the views of my right hon. Friend but I believe that there are serious disadvantages, if we are to have a 10- or 12-year Licence and Charter, for half of the period to be taken up with reviews and the inevitable paralysis that goes with them. I would not accept the implication of my right hon. Friend's question, that we need necessarily have any form of review which takes as long as previous reviews.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision in favour of round the clock television might have disastrous consequences for the finances of the B.B.C. and might very well bring about an increase in television licences?

Mr. Chataway: There is no obligation on either of the broadcasting authorities to extend their hours. No one would criticise the B.B.C., broadcasting as it does on two channels, if B.B.C. 1 were not on the air for all the hours when I.T.V. 1 was broadcasting.

Mr. Emery: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision which will allow equipment to be used for longer periods with greater economy and financial return, may I ask him if he will give an assurance, as there is bound to be pressure about the fourth channel, that he will hear in mind the arguments for regionalism in the presentation of such a channel? Will he consider not just regionalism based on programmes produced in London but really regional programmes which are often somewhat difficult to obtain and are not to be found in great numbers at present?

Mr. Chataway: I agree that these are important considerations and my hon. Friend will know that a number of regional companies were opposed to the proposals put forward in the I.T.A. plan.

Mr. John Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in some parts of Wales about the lack of choice in language and there being no Independent Television alternative? Has the Minister any proposals to make here? Is it not possible for Independent Tele-

vision to come to some agreement with the B.B.C. so that there is some choice?

Mr. Chataway: There is a great deal to be said for I.T.V. and B.B.C. considering some of these problems together and I hope that they will do so.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: In view of the proposed derestriction of radio broadcasting hours, can the Minister say what are the prospects of having a longer programme of serious classical music, particularly late at night, as in America, for the benefit of those who are up late, cannot sleep or are driving? Is he aware that this is a serious shortcoming in our entertainment scene?

Mr. Chataway: It would be up to the B.B.C. to supply a service of that kind if it was felt that there was a need. This announcement means that we no longer have the situation in which the Government are rationing the hours that the broadcasting authorities may use. I believe the vast majority of people will feel that this was really a pettifogging restriction that we could well do away with.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the view pressed upon him by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that there is not quite as much time for this inquiry as he seems to imagine? Does he appreciate that if things have to take place by 1976 we will need a report to this House early in 1975, preferably late in 1974? We are now in 1972 and it would not be too soon if the right hon. Gentleman were to begin considering the membership or nature of such an inquiry in the near future? Will he instead of generalising, consider the actual problems before him and think again about the necessity of beginning an inquiry pretty soon?

Mr. Chataway: I will bear the views of the hon. Gentleman in mind but he will accept that there is the problem that we do not want to see the broadcasting authorities for perhaps a third or a half of their lives subject to an inquiry.

Mr. Proudfoot: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations upon freeing television hours? Is he aware that it was always a stupid piece of nonsense designed to protect the B.B.C. monopoly? May I further ask him to


pledge that the fourth television channel will never be B.B.C.3?

Mr. Chataway: I think it very unlikely that that proposal would be made. It has not been made. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said.

Mr. Pavitt: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's constructive remarks about television and education will he do two things? First, will he persuade the Government to give the green light to my Bill on health education television which will come up later in the Session; and, secondly, will he attend the House on 18th February and lend his powerful voice in support of the effort to make preventive medicine instead of curative medicine part of the problems dealt with by the mass media?

Mr. Chataway: That would be a matter either for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or the Governors of the B.B.C. But I will consider the invitation which the hon. Gentleman has extended to me.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while the first part of his statement will be generally

welcomed, there is a ferment in the media and broadcasting generally which should be translated into a public inquiry as soon as possible? On the second part of his statement, does he accept that, while the general derestriction of hours will be welcomed, particularly by the smaller commercial companies which have a limited franchise, his Department should give an undertaking that the hours allocated to educational broadcasting will remain roughly the same as they are at the moment and that educational broadcasting will not be pushed to one side?

Mr. Chataway: The Independent Television Authority has already made it clear to me that it does not intend to reduce the quantity of schools broadcasting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CIVIL LIST BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill brought in upon a Financial Resolution, any remaining stages of the Civil List Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

CIGARETTES (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING)

4.21 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes; and for purposes connected therewith.
Since 1962, we have had a succession of reports from the Royal College of Physicians on the question of tobacco smoking generally, and particularly cigarette smoking. Each of them pointed out more strongly the dangers arising from the increase in cigarette smoking and demanded drastic action, but no effective action has been taken either by this House or by the Government.
The problem is very serious. There has been a very big increase in the smoking of cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is the problem rather than tobacco smoking in other forms. In 1940, 25,000 people died from tuberculosis and 5,000 from cancer of the lung. In 1970, hardly any people died from tuberculosis but nearly 50,000 died from lung cancer. Cigarette smoking has become the killer disease in this country.
It is important to compare the figures with the figures for deaths from other causes. In 1970, as many people died in this country from cigarette smoking as were killed in our bomber crews in the whole of the last war. Four times as many people were killed by cigarettes in 1970 as were killed in road accidents. Far more people died from smoking cigarettes than from taking drugs. There is an enormous campaign in this country against the sale of drugs and drug peddling, but no one organises against the "pushing" of cigarettes.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I do.

Mr. Parker: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but there has not been a campaign against cigarette smoking comparable with the big campaign which has been, quite rightly, mounted against drug pushing.
The great increase in the incidence of lung cancer is not the only result from the smoking of cigarettes. There has been a big increase in the incidence of cancer of the stomach and the very pain-

ful cancer of the bladder. The figures for coronary thrombosis have been affected by the increase in cigarette smoking. Most important of all, the incidence of chronic bronchitis—the "English disease"—has been very much on the increase. We have had clean air legislation to deal with the atmosphere, but in many public places the increase in cigarette smoking has increased the liability of many people to suffer from chronic bronchitis. Many people are dying painfully and many people are dying young who might otherwise have led useful lives.
What should be done? I am well aware that on both sides of the House there is a great deal of support for what is called "the new liberalism". In other words, the right of the individual must be asserted on all possible occasions. But there are occasions on which the right of the community as a whole needs to be stressed, particularly when we are considering what action should be taken.
Many people may say that a man has the right to kill himself by smoking cigarettes if he wishes. I do not quarrel with the right of a man to kill himself in that way if he so desires. But we must look at the consequences of that. What happens to the family of a man who dies in his early forties? The community must keep his wife and children. There are 50,000 people a year dying from this disease, who thus make a call on the National Health Service. This means that the whole National Health Service must be organised to meet the needs of this section of the population when the rest of the population may well require other sectors of the National Health Service to be given greater priority.
I mentioned the question of chronic bronchitis. The extreme consumption of tobacco by cigarette smokers can affect the health of people with whom they come in contact. That is something which must be considered from the community's point of view. My case is that the community has the right to take certain action in order to halt the spread of this habit and to ensure that young people, in particular, do not become addicts of the cigarette.
Hence this proposed Bill to prohibit cigarette advertising. If passed, it will prohibit the advertising of cigarettes,


whether in the Press, in magazines or on radio, as has happened in connection with television. It will prevent the sponsoring of sporting events by cigarette companies and prohibit cigarette advertising on billboards. It will make a clean sweep of advertising in cinemas and theatres. It is an extreme action, I agree, but it will have one big advantage: no great army of bureaucrats would be required and no red tape would be necessary to enforce a law of this kind. It would be very effective.
Last year, the tobacco interests spent £52 million on promoting the sale of tobacco, particularly of cigarettes. However, only £100,000 was spent on health education in this respect. The tobacco companies would not spend £52 million unless it showed results. If we prevented advertising, there would undoubtedly be a very big drop in the sale of cigarettes, which is the object of the exercise. It would be very effective in checking the enormous death roll from tobacco smoking.
Up to now, the only action which the Government have effectively taken is to get the tobacco companies to agree that a warning about the dangers of smoking should be put on cigarette packets. That has been tried in the United States. In the first year after the law was introduced in America, the consumption of cigarettes declined by 1 per cent. It is now higher than it was before the law came into force. No effective results will ensue from such action taken by the Government of this country.
The Government are frightened at the possible loss of revenue if there were a very big drop in cigarette smoking. They should be prepared to face that loss and to make it up from other sources if necessary. The ending of large-scale cigarette advertising would not only affect cigarette smoking. Young people would no longer feel that it was the right thing to do or that prestige was to be gained from cigarette smoking. That is another point which should be borne in mind.
This is a moral issue. We are fighting for the younger generation. It is right that we should take steps to prevent them from becoming addicts. This House has fought such battles in the past. I ask hon. Members to remember the very important battles over the question of the abolition

of the slave trade and slavery itself as a result of back-bench Members raising the matter. Back benchers forced legislation on the Government of the day and against powerful vested interests who fought back hard on their own behalf. We have the tobacco barons fighting hard now to keep the existing law. I hope the House will be prepared to fight the tobacco barons as our predecessors were prepared to fight the slave traders in the past.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I seek to oppose the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) in his attempt to introduce his Bill. I should say at the very outset, as is proper in this House, that I have no interest in the tobacco industry, but I have had a lifelong interest in the advertising industry and I know something of the effects of that element in our industrial society.
The hon. Member has spoken with great feeling about the danger of cigarettes to our health, and I do not think that anyone in the House can deny that a danger exists. I accept that, too. The Royal College of Physicians has shown that cigarette smoking is bad for our health. Parliament has debated this matter, and debated it at great length and in full, and has agreed with the Royal College of Physicians; and the present Government have taken action. The public are being warned—they are being warned at this moment—of these dangers. Whenever they buy a packet of cigarettes they are given such a warning about them through advertisement. They see a warning—a warning agreed with the Government and applied voluntarily by the industry.
The hon. Member for Dagenham is now suggesting that we should go further because of danger to our health and—this is what we are debating—is suggesting that we should ban all advertising of cigarettes. I would suggest, however, that such a step would not only be wrong but would be ridiculous, if Parliament were to decide to take it. If Parliament believes that people should be denied the right to choose whether to smoke, whether to smoke cigarettes, how many to smoke, and if Parliament is to assume that the individual has not the intelligence or the strength of mind


or will to make his own judgment in this matter concerning his own health, then we should ban the manufacture and distribution of cigarettes altogether. I ask hon. Members: is Parliament prepared to take that acton? Of course it is not. Instead, it is being asked this afternoon to ban the advertising of cigarettes.
The Royal College of Physicians, in its admirable and very important report, thought that a ban on advertising
would provide a clear declaration of Parliament's concern about the dangers of the habit
but it also said that it thought that such a ban would be completely ineffective and cited the cases of two countries where such a ban applies, Russia and Italy, where cigarette smoking has actually gone up.
Parliament has already shown its concern in this matter. The public is being advised all the time. The Government are running a campaign—I wish it were an even bigger campaign—positively to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. Are we seriously suggesting that while we feel that we must stop short of forbidding people to smoke, we intend to refuse them any advice about which cigarettes to buy?
Cigarettes are harmful, I accept; but they are considerably less harmful today than they were 20 years ago. Progress has been made in the tobacco industry in the elimination of tars and their injurious effects and the research and the progress is continuing. The tobacco industry must be free to tell the public about such improvements, because the time will come when a manufacturer may want to persuade the smoker to switch to a safer cigarette.
May we look, in a few minutes, to see what cigarette advertising is like today? There are in this country approximately 20 million cigarette smokers—49 per cent. of all adults over the age of 16.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Shame.

Mr. Crouch: In 1950 that percentage was 49½), and at that time, in 1950, 20 years ago, the expenditure on cigarette advertising was £700,000 a year. In 1970 the percentage had fallen slightly, by ½ per cent., to 49 per cent., but the expenditure on advertising had risen

enormously to £13 million a year. It had not increased the consumption of cigarettes or the percentage of adults smoking. It is widely recognised that cigarette advertising does not increase the totality of cigarette smoking. I have not smoked for over a year, and the present style of advertising is not inclined to tempt me to start again.
Since 1962 the cigarette manufacturing industry has voluntarily restricted the manner and style in which it advertises cigarettes, recognising the danger which over-consumption of cigarettes can produce. It will, perhaps, interest the House if I just state that it is possible in an advertisement for cigarettes to present only the type and brand name of the cigarette. There are five major restrictions to which the industry works in this country. There must be no over-emphasis on pleasure from smoking; advertisements must not feature heroes; there must be no appeal to manliness or pride; they must not suggest that it is fashionable or "go-ahead" or exciting to smoke—

Sir G. Nabarro: What about Sotheby's?

Mr. Crouch: An advertisement must not suggest—this will interest my hon. Friend very much—romantic success in any field.
It is true that since the banning of television advertising in 1965 another element in the promotion of cigarettes has been introduced, which is coupons, but coupons, like advertising, influence brand choice, and are not a motivational factor in smoking itself. Smokers of coupon brands—they amount to 67 per cent. of all cigarette smokers—do not smoke more cigarettes than those who smoke non-coupon brands.
I put it to the House that if manufacturers reduced the price of coupon brands by an amount equivalent to the value of the coupons, sales of those cigarettes would probably increase. It is possible that a ban on coupons would bring about an increase in the number of cigarettes smoked. In fact, coupon-brand cigarettes contain less tobacco by 11 per cent. than non-coupon-brand cigarettes; this is how the coupons and the prizes they offer are paid for.
In conclusion, there are many casual observers today of our modern complex


industrial society who automatically look upon advertising as bad and unnecessary, but if we believe in freedom of choice, and the interest and pleasure which goes with that, we must accept that advertising has an important part to play in informing the consumer. It is also an essential ingredient in the marketing, distribution, and ultimately the manufacturing process, and success in the sale, of a product. Perhaps some would scorn me if I talked about the sale and success of cigarettes, because the scale of success of a consumer product depends on the size of its market, and that can be achieved only through advertising, but if we are not prepared to stop the production and sale of

cigarettes, and if we believe that present-day cigarettes are harmful, then we shall best help our case by allowing the manufacturers to be successful so that they can go on in their efforts to develop the safer cigarette. I must, therefore, oppose this Motion which, I believe, would not only prevent this freedom of choice but would prevent the essential research for the safer and better cigarette.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes, 73.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[4.40 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Golding, John
Moate, Roger


Armstrong, Ernest
Gower, Raymond
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hamiling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Biggs-Davison, John
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John


Booth, Albert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bowden, Andrew
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Buchan, Norman




Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jessel, Toby
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cordle, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cronin, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Skinner, Dennis


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tarn
Langford-Holt. Sir John
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson. Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leonard, Dick
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lipton, Marcus
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Delargy, H. J.
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Dormand, J. D.
Luce, R. N.
Torney, Tom


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard




Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
McLaren, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ewing, Henry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Weitzman, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Foot, Michael
Marshall. Dr. Edmund
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and Sir Gerald Nabarro.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce



Garrett, W. E.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Churchill, W. S.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Robert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brewis, John
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crouch, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chapman, Sydney
Curran, Charles




d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soref, Harold


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


English, Michael
McCrindle. R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Money, Ernie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian
Waddington, David


Havers, Michael
Pounder. Rafton
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks, Robert
Redmond, Robert
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davis, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Roberts, Micheal (Cardiff, N.)



Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Idris Owen and Mr. Nicholas Winterton


Kinsey, J. R.
Scott-Hopkins, James

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker, Mr. Pavitt, Dr. Stuttaford, Sir G. Nabarro, Mr. David Steel and Sir B. Rhys Williams.

CIGARETTES (PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISING)

Bill to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st January, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

The Committee divided: Ayes 173, Noes 40.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[6.8 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Havers, Michael
Peel, John


Astor, John
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Hicks, Robert
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Holt, Miss Mary
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Raison, Timothy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Bell, Ronald
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Benyon, W.
Jenkin. Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Biffen, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Biggs-Davison, John
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Boscawen, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bowden, Andrew
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brewis, John
Kilfedder, James
Scott-Hopkins, James



King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)



Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kinsey, J. R.
Sharples, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Soref, Harold


Buck, Antony
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Spence, John


Chapman, Sydney
Lewis. Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Churchill, W. S.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cockeram, Eric
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cooke, Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Coombs, Derek
McCrindle, R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooper, A. E.
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Cordle, John
Maclean. Sir Fitzroy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cormack, Patrick
McMaster, Stanley
Sutcliffe, John


Costain, A. P.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Crouch, David
Madel, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Curran, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Elliott, W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Money, Ernie
Wall, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walters, Dennis


Fowler, Norman
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wiggin, Jerry


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Wilkinson, John


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Gummer, Selwyn
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Normanton, Tom



Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborn, John



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Latham, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Dalyell, Tam
Leonard, Dick
Woof, Robert


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lestor, Miss Joan



Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Arthur Davidson.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John



Foot, Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Clause 1

ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR THE QUEEN'S CIVIL LIST

4.50 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, to leave out '£980,000' and to insert:
£400,000, which sum is hereafter in this Act referred to as the Vote on Royal Family Expenditure'.

The Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee to take with this Amendment No. 3, in line 15, to leave out Queen's Civil List ' and to insert:
Vote on Royal Family expenditure',
Amendment No. 4, in line 15, to leave out second 'Civil List', Amendment No. 5, line 17, to leave out 'Civil List expenditure' and to insert:
'the Vote on Royal Family Expenditure',
and Amendment No. 20, in Clause 5, page 5, line 2, to leave out 'Civil List expenditure' and to insert:
'Vote on Royal Family expenditure'.

Mr. Grant: I move this Amendment with some diffidence since I cannot expect to bring to this discussion all the eloquence and kindly, picturesque, old-world charm which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife. West (Mr. William Hamilton) would have brought to the discussion had he been present today. I have sent him a telegram which reads:
'Friends at Westminster and Buckingham Palace wish you a speedy recovery. Wish you were here.
I did think of making it an all-party telegram by adding the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas), but I thought that would be regarded as a mockery of the afflicted.
I wish to make it clear that I am moving this Amendment perhaps not for the same reasons as those which would have been deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West had he been

here. There are a number of Amendments which my hon. Friend originally tabled and which I shall support today, though not entirely without reservation, but primarily because they are far better than the Government's proposals and serve to underline the feeling among some of us that the House has not been properly treated in the matter of the Civil List Bill.
I believe that the House has not been given adequate or sufficient facts on which to sustain the case for an increase of the magnitude proposed or of any magnitude—and indeed, because of the lack of facts, for any increase at all. We are being asked to sign what might be called a continuing blank cheque, because this £980,000 is only a very small part of the amount involved which concerns the taxpayer.
The House has not been given the necessary information to enable it to opt for this figure—usually now referred to as meaning a million-pound Monarch. a phrase which is somewhat phoney since, as we have heard in previous debates. millions more are spent on all sorts of other items by Government Departments in the maintenance of Royal palaces, the Royal yacht, the Queen's Flight, free fuel, free telephones, free stationery and so on. The tendency in recent years has been more and more to pay the Royal bills in this way. This seems to me to have been conveniently forgotten by the Government in arriving at the figure of £980.000.
I come to the question—a question that is relevant to this Amendment—of the private fortune, which many of us on this side of the Committee feel cannot be separated from the known public expenditure, because that money is tax-free. I have pursued the principle underlying the tax-free position of the Royal Family on three separate occasions on the Floor of the House, and I have yet to receive any satisfactory answer. I have pursued this matter once with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. twice with the Leader of the House, and I have not had any answer at all, except that custom and practice must be continued in the good old Conservative style. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to this matter again today.
It is entirely the fault of the Queen and her advisers in the Government that this Amendment is being pressed in this


form. If the Select Committee of this House had not been refused the very relevant information about the private fortune and about this incredible tax-free bonanza—we do not know how much, but it must be substantial indeed and clearly it has been enjoyed for many years—there might have been a rather different situation today.
I was pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition accepted on Second Reading that the sensible way out would be for the private fortune to remain private but to be subject to normal taxation. That suggestion, if not wholly satisfactory to everybody, was a fair and reasonable compromise. I regret that the suggestion was not seized upon by the Government, because all that has happened is that it has postponed the argument and controversy to some future occasion—and there will certainly be future occasions. Likewise, the failure to accept the view of the Opposition that there should be a public department to keep proper public control and continuous public scrutiny of these matters must similarly influence discussion today on this Amendment.
I accept that the figure of £400,000 which appears in the Amendment, and which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, is perhaps somewhat arbitrary, and I think my hon. Friend probably would also take that view. I am prepared to see the Queen paid fairly for the work she is expected to do, but I do not believe we have been supplied with anything like the necessary information to enable us to decide on the level of that award.
I believe that the Government and the Palace have kept up a smokescreen to prevent the public seeing what is really going on on the whole question of the Royal finances. For these reasons, I hope that the Amendment will be supported.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford): I should first like to express a word of agreement with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) in regretting the absence of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I fear that, in part, I may have been responsible. For some time I have been praying against him, and I fear I may have overdone it. So we

now have a debate which I do not suppose one could call Hamlet without the prince because that might cause offence, but certainly Hamlet without the ghost. I am sure we all wish the hon. Member for Fife, West a speedy recovery and I hope that he will be back to play a constructive part in the proceedings on his own important Bill, which deals with the removal of inequalities between the sexes and which will be before the House later in the Session.
I fear that there the point of concord must end, because I regard this Amendment as not only arbitrary, as the proposer himself admitted, but as quite absurd. The Amendment seeks to leave out the sum of £980,000 and to substitute a figure of £400,000. We have been given no explanation whatever as to where this figure came from, who thought it up, or upon what it is based. It is not good enough for an Amendment on a serious matter of this kind to be tabled in such a frivolous manner.
The figures which are given in the Civil List show how absurd this particular figure is. The salaries of the Royal Household alone amount to £448,000, so that the only effect of the Amendment would be either that the numbers employed would be cut down and unemployment would be increased, which I think hardly anyone in his right senses will propose at the present time, or that it would be necessary to cut down the salaries of those employed in the Palace. Is that what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to see happen? That is the ineluctable consequence of their proposal. They have left no money for the expenses of the Household which, as we see in the Civil List, amount to £200,000. How are they to be met if the Amendment is passed?
After all, the Select Committee, with the exception perhaps of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), was in basic agreement—

Mr. Joel Barnett: indicated dissent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) adopted a position of total agnosticism to this issue, saying that he had no information and, therefore, could make no contribution.

Mr. Barnett: I said that £980,000 was as arbitrary as the figure that the hon. Gentleman condemns.

[Mr. GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have had the pleasure, if that be the right word, of listening to the hon. Gentleman speaking in the Committee. I know his attitude has been determined by his view that insufficient information has been made available. But the Committee as a whole agreed that it was not possible to cut down the expenses of the Monarchy without major changes in function.
If one looks to the functions which it would be possible to change, one finds that they would be changed only at great public loss. One of the main items of expenditure, for example, is that incurred on the Royal Mews. It would be possible to save money by cutting out that expenditure entirely, but it would be at a very high price. A high price would be paid in terms of the loss of tourist revenue alone. Millions of people come here as tourists because the country is a monarchy, and they want to see the show going on. That is not an argument which appeals to me in defence of the Monarchy. It is an argument ad hominem, but it is a point which is very relevant. There would be a great loss to the ceremonial aspects of the Monarchy if we closed the Royal Mews. The State Opening of Parliament, the Trooping of the Colour, and so on, would all have to go.
The Amendment is financially absurd and, I think, puritanical and mean-spirited. It is noticeable from the post that I have received on this subject—and it is supported by the results of the polls carried out in the Evening Standard and elsewhere—that on the whole it is older people who resent expenditure on the Monarchy. On the whole, the younger generation is pleased to see this money being spent. In view of that, I reject the Amendment as being moved on behalf of those who are petty minded and, on the whole, ancient.
We have had plenty of information on the subject. I, for one, interested as I am in the Monarchy, would not have wanted to prolong the sittings of the Select Committee by a single day. I

doubt whether anyone else wanted to. We had ample opportunity for getting information, and all the information on the public expenditure of the Monarchy is there. It is true that we were not given information on the private fortune, which is such an obsession with hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man). The private fortune is irrelevant. It is a totally separate issue. The issue is whether we wish the Monarchy to perform certain functions and, if we do, whether we should provide the means for it to do so. If we will the end, we must will the means. That is why I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Richard Crossman: I must first congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on making one of his speeches. At least the hon. Gentleman has the courage of his deep deferential convictions. He speaks with a deference to the Pope and to the Queen—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have no deference to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Crossman: I agree that the hon. Gentleman has no deference to me. However, I prefer no one to be deferential to anyone. That is the difference between us. But it is nice to hear from the hon. Gentleman the old laws and saws repeated to us, because they stimulate us to join the debate once again. Each time that we speak here, a few more people outside read and digest. Every time that they do that, we convert them to our views.
One of the most striking features of the Civil List is that it is the last Civil List of this kind that there will ever be. The Treasury Bench know very well that they will not be able to do this again. The Monarchy cannot again behave with what I must say has been its almost indecent arrogance when it is submitted to a Select Committee. It is impossible. We have won the battle on this Civil List, whatever the vote today, whatever the abstentions today, and whatever the studied lack of interest today. Outside in the country there is a great deal of mild, detached, sceptical interest in the hypocrisies with which the Civil Lists have been prepared on this occasion.
I speak as someone who believes that the Monarchy is a useful instrument for siphoning off our harmless snobbish emotions on to impotent people. As long as they are impotent, as long as we siphon off our emotions, as long as we are snobbish about them and we love them, it takes us out of the dialectic of politics and makes us have a parliamentary democracy. The more that we have a parliamentary democracy, the more that we need something to abstract our emotions. The trouble is that the more educated we are, the stronger the snobbery. The stronger the snobbery which possesses us, the more useful it is to have this harmless amount of deference which the hon. Member for Chelmsford feels and expresses so passionately. That is fine.
If we have it in a sophisticated democracy which understands what is going on, perhaps better than Members of Parliament, certain parts of it had better not be mystical. The one area where there should be no mystery is cash. The House of Commons must be as cash conscious and as hard-headed about cash for the Monarchy as it is about cash for the Health Service or anything else. It must have exactly the same treatment, no more and no less.
This Report on the Civil List was designed to obfuscate the real facts and to prevent the Select Committee knowing any basis on which to assess a reasonable sum. That is what we are discussing today. It has been demonstrated overwhelmingly that, on the basis of the facts provided to the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) was the one logical member of the Select Committee who said quite simply, "On that basis, if I am scrupulous, I cannot make un my mind whether the sum should be £980,000 or £430,000, because the essential facts have been denied me."
The hon. Member for Chelmsford repeated the nonsense of saying that the facts which were denied the Committee were irrelevant. I come back to this again. The size of the private fortunes of the Prince of Wales and of the Queen are relevant, not because they are private fortunes, but because they are free of tax. They are accumulating fortunes which have not paid death duties since death duties were instituted in 1894 and

on which no income tax or surtax is payable. They have their great landed estates. Many of us who have farming interests may feel that, if we were free of tax, we could make a go of them and win. Royal farms are unfairly privileged in a way which other farms are not.
Let us consider Royal investments in equities. All we can say is that they are completely secret. How much is locked away in strongboxes in Switzerland none of us know. How much is invested in American securities or American holdings in New York property, how much is speculated, no one is allowed to know.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We would not know that anyway.

Mr. Crossman: I have no objection to not knowing the private income if it is fully taxed. When it is fully taxed we have no right to pry. If the Royal income is taxed as our incomes are taxed, it becomes private income just like our own. But while it retains the privilege and the monopoly of being tax-free it is not private income in the sense that any other citizen's income is private. Therefore, it is a matter of public concern for a very simple reason.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that the Amendment is absurd. He said that this reduction is absurd. Of course it is, but it is no more absurd than the original figure. We put down this Amendment to demonstrate the point that whatever figure is put down is absurd because of the denial of the essential information.
In trying to make sense of it—I thought that we put down quite a sensible figure —the hon. Gentleman said that it just about covered the salaries, and added, "Oh dear, that will leave £200,000 of expenditure uncovered."
Let us consider the Prince of Wales. Thanks to the Committee, we know a little about the Prince of Wales's estates. We can now calculate that the Prince of Wales owns land alone, apart from equities, valued at more than £20 million. We know that he has an annual income from those estates of at least £500,000 whenever he wants it. Sums of this size must affect our estimate of how much of the expenditure we should pay. Of course we shall pay the salaries. We


know that the £1 million is only one-fifth of what we pay. We are already paying through our Departments of State—the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and the Ministry of Defence, and other Departments—the main items of what might be called public expenditure to the Queen. They are already covered in a whole series of items spread over various Departments. About £4 million of Royal expenditure is accepted as public expenditure.
What about the rest of it, so to speak? At this point we put forward the proposal that there should be a small Department whose job it should be to run Royalty, in the sense of allocating a fair amount, and to report to and advise us. This recommendation was defeated by the Government's automatic majority. They refused to have supervision of the expenditure. If we refuse to supervise the private expenditure and to look into the private income— we know it only to be vast—it is ludicrous to say that we can decide how much to allocate beyond the payment of salaries to cover expenditure.
The Committee proved conclusively that no sharp line can be drawn regarding Royalty between private and public expenditure. I take as a simple example the Queen's Wardrobe. Who is to discriminate between which is public and private entertaining? It is impossible to make the distinction. If it is impossible to make the distinction between private and public expenditure, it is also impossible to make the distinction between private and public income and private and public capital. All these things link together.
We on this side would like nothing better than to avoid prying. We should like nothing better than to allow the Queen to be treated like any other citizen and have her private wealth to herself as secret as anybody else's. The Committee could then do its job of assessing the Civil List. All the Votes would be normal Departmental Votes. There would not need to be this special Vote, because it would all be covered as four-fifths of it is covered today.
The reason that the one-fifth is left in this form is to mystify us on the essential issue of the vast private fortune. The more I reflect on this the more I am shocked by the advice that Royalty has

received from the Government. After all, in the sessions of the Select Committee we did not overplay our hand. We were extremely quiet, but we made it absolutely clear that certain information was essential and should and must be provided to afford a firm base for our assessment.
5.15 p.m.
What happened? The courtiers—it was not their fault—went back to the Palace, spoke to Royalty, and were sent back with instructions to say that they knew nothing about it. That is what they said. They were asked a question. Having learned the question, they went back to the Palace and then came back and said, "All we can tell you is that we do not know."
I was accused at the last meeting of being wrong in making the allegation that the information was refused by the Queen. I will repeat the sequence of events. Lord Cobbold was asked to inform himself about the size of the private fortune. He told the Committee that he knew nothing about it. Are we to believe that he neglected his duty? Are we to be told that he never went back and told Her Majesty what the Select Committee had requested?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There are many errors in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I should like to point out one in particular. He has referred to the Select Committee having asked. This is an important point. The Select Committee never asked for this information. One or two Members of the Select Committee wanted this information, so it was asked for as a piece of private enterprise, so to speak. It was not an official request on the part of the Committee.

Mr. Crossman: We have plenty of time for discussion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address the Committee again, we shall be delighted to hear him and to answer him yet again. I look forward to his intervention. I look forward with interest to what he may say in exposing my inaccuracies.

Mr. Charles Pannell: This kind of argument will not stand up. I have probably sat on more Select Committees than any Member on this side of the House. I have specialised in that kind


of thing. When any individual Member, including an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, asks for information, it is well known that his side want the information. Nobody doubts that if the information had been forthcoming it would have eased the position of members of the Select Committee. A Select Committee is not a matter of private enterprise. It strives always for an agreed statement. No one likes minority reports. This was heavily underlined by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there was a flat obligation on Lord Cobbold to bring back the information. Obviously he did not come back on his own say-so.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming the record. The record makes it crystal clear that the information was refused to the Select Committee by the Queen. Of course, we must also assume that it was refused on the advice of the Government.
I was criticising, not the Queen, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman must have known what would happen if he advised the Queen that she could and should refuse to give the information. He knew that it would split the Committee on a crucial issue, and that is what it did. The blame rests, not with Royalty, but entirely with the Government and the Chancellor. They showed a kind of blind, wooden stupidity. They took the view, "We have a majority, and we are going to do what we want."
It was a desperate mistake. The Chancellor knows that as a result of that mistake people have turned against Royalty on this issue. The Chancellor had the impertinence to refer to the polls as in some way sustaining his view. The most recent poll, which received so little publicity, showed that whereas the whole country broadly thought that the Queen should have an increase, when it came to the amount proposed by the Government the proportions were almost reversed. The fact was that 30 per cent. became 50 per cent., and 50 per cent. became 30 per cent. A clear majority thought that what was being given, that this total which we are voting against by the Amendment, was too high.
How did this change take place over the sum involved? In my view it occurred basically because of the revelation of the

size of the royal fortune and the unwise refusal to reveal to the Select Committee facts for which the minority of the Committee asked. The fault lies not only in the denial of information, but also in the deliberate mystification, in the concealing of four-fifths of the sum involved in Departmental votes, so that we talk about the million pound monarchy.
The trouble arises from deliberate mystification. That mystification would immediately and automatically have been remedied by our proposal to set up a small department which would have all these things under its control and would publish details of them. It is dishonest to talk about this as being the main sum when it is in fact less than one-fifth of what is being paid, and four-fifths of the total is being paid already through Government Departments. That is the second point on which we strongly object. 
The third reason is that the size of the private fortune is relevant as long as it is not taxed. I do not want to dwell on that any further, because it is a point that we have got across successfully. When the Finance Bill is introduced, I shall look forward to seeing in it a new Clause dealing with this matter because, after all, the House of Commons has a simple way of rectifying this matter. It can be done in the next Finance Bill. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will show wisdom. Perhaps he will consider that it would be a good thing to give way on this and introduce into the Finance Bill a Clause imposing taxation on the Royal fortune. It could be done cleanly in that way, and if it were I should stop complaining. I should say that we have now got the matter right, and we can have a new Civil List Committee. We can sit down and plan the thing sensibly.
I say to the hon. Member for Chelmsford that I am not one of those who, in his own words, are puritanical or mean-spirited. I do not think that he can accuse me of being puritanical by nature. I, too, think that it is a mistake to try to have a monarchy on the cheap. It is a good thing to have a good show. If one is going to do it at all, do it well, do it lavishly. But doing a thing lavishly does not mean doing a thing with the essential information refused. The right


way to be lavish is to get to know the facts, and then one can afford to be lavish. The right way to put out the facts is to put them all together in one vote so that we can see what the total cost is and have the cost reviewed annually like everything else.
If there were an annual review, I suspect that it would be rarely used, but it is a good thing to have a right and then not always use it. As long as there is this deliberate mystification and concealment as part of the Government's policy some of us will continue to complain.
This is the last time that any Government will make this mistake. The Government know that it has sadly damaged the Monarchy. They know that it has divided the House gratuitously and unnecessarily. They know that it was highly hypocritical, and now they know that public opinion, as so often, is more adult and more sophisticated than the Tory Cabinet.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has raised again today what he raised before, namely, the question of the private fortune of the Queen. It clearly has nothing to do with the Civil List. Many rich people who have private fortunes manage to escape paying tax. The Monarchy is not unique in that respect. Rich people avoid paying tax by setting up trusts. The money is passed to someone else, and tax is not paid on it. The last occasion on which we discussed this matter I said that it was an issue for the Queen, and I made certain suggestions, which I do not intend to repeat now.
I found it a little odd listening to the right hon. Gentleman. At the beginning of a speech he gave the impression that the British people were against the Monarchy.

Mr. Crossman: No.

Mr. Lewis: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the beginning of his speech he will see that he was unenthusiastic about the institution of the Monarchy as such. At the end of his speech he came back to the position which he says he has always held. He said that he was a

monarchist, and he believed that if one does things one should do them well.
If the Opposition believe that the Monarchy should do things well, why is it that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) has tabled an Amendment to halve the amount? The Civil List Committee was representative of both sides of the House. It was representative of the Front Benches as well as the back benches. The Committee arrived at a figure. That figure was accepted on Second Reading, but now we have before us a suggestion that the amount should be halved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) when he says that this suggestion is ridiculous.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The figure suggested in the Committee's Report was not accepted by this side of the House. We voted on a specific Amendment which would have altered the whole basis of payment.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman voted for an Amendment which, in our view, would have increased the cost, as it would have created a new Department of State. It would have bureaucratised the Monarchy. It would have nationalised the Monarchy, if one likes to put it that way, and it is our experience that when something is nationalised, costs increase.
This is not a payment to the Royal Family as such. It is a payment for services provided. It is largely a payment for wages and salaries, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know that perfectly well. This is the first time for many years that the payment for wages and salaries has been increased, and during that period everyone else in the country has received large increases. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that during the last few days there has been criticism of the increases that we are giving ourselves in this House. The large increase that we are to receive arises from the fact that we have not given ourselves an increase in salary for many years. We are now giving ourselves a rise to make up for what we have not had before, and the criticism of the increase is therefore unfair.
The same judgment must be applied to the money being provided for the


Queen. This is an increase for the payment of wages and salaries that are necessary to keep up the institution of the monarchy. This increase is to catch up with the increases in costs over many years. This is a catching-up operation.
If hon. Members criticise what we are doing here, they should be equally critical of what we are doing about our own salaries—

Mr. Eric S. Heller: There is no comparison.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: Of course there is. There is a comparison simply because the increase is larger because it is a catching-up operation. I imagine that all hon. Members expect that we will not get another increase for a number of years. Nor will the Queen. This is to anticipate increases within the service of the Royal Family itself. The hon. Member will know that those who are employed in the Royal Family would expect a rise next year and the year after that—

Mr. Heffer: indicated assent.

Mr. Lewis: So the hon. Member would accept that they should have those increases—

Mr. Heffer: It should not be done this way.

Mr. Lewis: This sum of money is in anticipation of the kind of rises which should have been paid to the servants of the Royal Family in anticipation of what they would expect in the years to come. Any good trade unionist should accept that the servants employed by the Royal Household should come under the same rules as people working in industry.
This is a normal operation, because it is providing money which is long overdue, which, as the right hon. Member for Coventry East said, is necessary for a Royal Household which will do its job, in his word, "lavishly", in mine, "adequately". The British people, so far as they support the Monarchy, want the job done adequately, if not lavishly, and I believe they support the proposal that we should provide the money to do it.

The Chancellor of The Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I join the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) in saying a word about the hon.

Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Whatever those of us on the Select Committee may have thought about his views, which he expressed very strongly there, many times—although, more often than not, when we voted he found himself more or less isolated—he has consistently put forward these views and it is unfortunate that he is not well enough to take part in this debate.
Although I thought that he expressed himself with a certain immoderation which I did not think was justified, the principles which he consistently advocated he held sincerely. Therefore, although I would not append my name to everything which was in the telegram that the hon. Gentleman said, I would want to send a message from everyone on both sides of the House wishing him a speedy return.
The hon. Member for Islington, East, said that he thought that the House of Commons had not been properly treated. Speaking with some feeling as the person elected Chairman of the Select Committee, which sat a considerable number of times, I would say that no one would deny—although they may be critical of some of the answers given to individuals or some of the information which they considered should have been given—that no Select Committee on the Civil List in history has conducted as thorough an investigation as we did on this issue. So the whole House will agree that there was a significant advance.
We took far more evidence than has ever been taken before. The appendices to the report conclusively support that observation. Also, as the House knows, for the first time we published virtually the whole of the evidence put before us. I agree of course—it would be stupid to pretend otherwise—that there is room for considerable argument about what the amount in Clause 1 should be. There is also room for argument about certain factors—such as the right hon. Member's reference to the private resources of the Queen—and about the extent to which, if at all, these factors are relevant.
We have been over this ground a number of times. Although I took part in the debate on the report, I was in Washington at the time of the Second Reading, but I have read it and I recognise that this is an issue. But my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr.


St. John-Stevas) is right to say that the basic question which we have to decide is whether we want to maintain the operation of the Monarchy at its present level, whether we want a "lavish" monarchy, as the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) seemed to think was desirable, or something which operates adequately and effectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said.
There is no doubt that the work of the Royal Family—in this Clause, we are considering the Queen's Household—has increased considerably over the years since 1952, the last occasion that we had a Civil List Bill. Of course I respect the views of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, but I cannot see—on the assumption that he is sincere in what he has said this afternoon—why he has to tell the House that there is deliberate mystification, that the Government have deliberately set out to mystify the British public, because a considerable amount of the expenditure incurred in connection with the activities of Royalty is on Votes.
The right hon. Member knows, as I do, that, in the document which was circulated with the report, the details of what has been carried on Votes are set out. No one is trying to conceal this. It was one of the major matters which the Select Committee considered. Unfortunately, we in the Committee did not have the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's advice, but it was one of the aspects which we considered with great care and at length. It is there in the document and the figures are set out there.
The object of this Amendment and the related ones is to reduce the Civil List provision from £980,000 to £400,000 and to convert it into a new Vote on Royal Family expenditure. The hon. Member for Fife, West, in whose name these Amendments stand, made clear to the Select Committee—it is all there for everyone to read—what his views were. The salaries of the Household now total about £500.000 a year. What the hon. Member wanted to do—this was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as well—was to transfer to the Treasury Vote the responsibility for these salaries, just

as other transfers had been made to departmental Votes from time to time during the reign. The implication of such a transfer, as the right hon. Gentle-made clear, is that the Treasury and the Civil Service Department would take over complete control of the appointment and the pay and so on of all the Household staff.
First—I need not dwell on this, because it is obvious to those who were either on the Select Committee or have read its report—this is completely inconsistent with the proposals of the Committee. We specifically considered not only the possibility of doing what the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) wanted us to do—a suggestion which he put forward with cogency in the debate—but also the desirability of transferring to Votes further expenditure, without necessarily going as far as the right hon. Member for Sowerby had suggested.
To do it in that way would be what I can only describe as a backdoor method of turning the Royal Household into a Government Department—compared with the straightforward. open and consistent proposals of the right hon. Member for Sowerby, who explained clearly what he wanted to do and how he wanted to achieve a Department of the Crown.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford that if this group of Amendments were accepted on the basis on which it would have been put forward by the hon. Member for Fife. West and as interpreted by the right hon. Member for Coventry. East, who talked of something in the nature of a Department of the Crown, there would be no saving. All the evidence was to the effect that it would result in an increase in cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that the figure of £400.000 put forward in the Amendment was arbitrary. I do not blame the hon. Member for Islington. East for introducing this figure. He has obviously suggested a lower one to provide an opportunity for arguing the principle that is involved.
In view of what has been said on this subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite, perhaps I should comment on the figure of £980,000. The annual payment of


£980,000 which the Select Committee recommended and which is embodied in Clause 1 is estimated to be sufficient for a period of some years.
The actual expenditure to be covered in this calendar year, 1972, is estimated at £810,000. That is for the salaries and expenses of the Royal Household plus a fixed sum—all this is in the report—of £10,200 for Royal bounty, arms and special services, leaving a margin of about £160,000. This margin, or whatever the margin may be from year to year, will be held by the Royal Trustees under Clause 1(4) together with any surplus out of the £60,000 which is provided under Clause 3 in respect of payments to other members of the Royal Family.
For how long this margin will suffice to meet rising costs depends entirely on future rates of inflation. No explicit assumption was made by the Select Committee in reaching this figure, but anybody can work it out. As I have people to work it out for me, it might be as well if I were to give the House the benefit of the advice I have received. Mathematically it can be shown that the figure of £980,000 will probably suffice for the whole of the first 10-year period if inflation keeps below an annual rate of 10 per cent. over this period.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Did not the right hon. Gentleman seek to establish the personal fortune and income of the Queen in making this estimate of the amount of money that is and will be required? Did he at any time seek any indication of the size of this fortune and income in arriving at this figure?

Mr. Barber: I certainly did not seek any specific information about the size of the Queen's fortune. As a result of certain questions which were put to Lord Cobbold, he returned to the Committee. In other words, as a result of certain private conversations that I had with one right hon. Gentleman opposite, Lord Cobbold returned and gave further information, though I certainly do not intend to go in to those conversations or to elaborate on them.
As for the private resources of the Queen, we have discussed this matter at some length. Questions have been asked

and I have noted carefully what was said on Second Reading, when these questions were answered by the Financial Secretary. I have made my views clear on this subject. I appreciate that they differ from those of some hon. Gentlement opposite. I have said that I respect their views. This is a case where we must beg to differ. I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on Second Reading.
I can only add that I believe, as the majority of the Select Committee believed, that in all the circumstances, taking into account the evidence, for the calendar year 1972 the figure of £810,000 should be increased to £980,000 to take account of the possibility of increased prices in the coming period.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: I want to be sure that I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly. Am I correct in summarising his remarks as meaning that certain conversations were held with Lord Cobbold about the nature of the Queen's fortune and income and that those conversations were obviously of a private nature?

Mr. Barber: I thought I had made the position clear. I had a private conversation—in fact, I had private conversations with several Members of the Select Committee—and as a result of those conversations, which I am not prepared to disclose, I approached Lord Cobbold, who, as a result of that approach, gave further evidence to the Committee, and that evidence is there to be read.
Perhaps I should add that I have just been informed that I made an error a short while ago when I used the figure of 10 per cent. in relation to the degree of inflation over the 10-year period. The figure should have been 5 per cent.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Tory accountancy.

Mr. Barber: Hon. Members should note the conclusion of the Select Committee in paragraph 21:
Turning now to provision for the Civil List, Your Committee first considered possible means of reducing the total Civil List requirement, both by way of further economies in expenditure by the Royal Household, and by the transfer of appropriate items of expenditure to departmental Votes. Your Committee were satisfied that on the basis of the evidence they received there was little further scope for


economies in the Royal Household. They accept the view both of those Members of the Household who gave evidence and of the Civil Service Union that it would not be right in today's circumstances to expect Palace employees to be paid at a lower level than would be appropriate for corresponding work elsewhere. And they consider that savings should not be achieved by substantially reducing the scale or style of Royal occasions and appearances.
I believe that there is common ground on that and that, if one is to ensure that that is so, it is necessary to provide sums of the order we have been discussing and which appear in Clause 1.

Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman has made rather confused what I thought was becoming clear. I was interested to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself knew the details of the personal fortune of the Queen and her income before deciding the sums of money that should be voted by this House. I understood that his reticence was not about the need to discover for himself what the personal fortune of the Queen might be, and which must be a highly relevant consideration in this matter, but about letting the House and the country know the details which he had discovered.
Does the right hon. Gentleman have this information and did he use it to decide, on his own initiative, how much money should be given to the Queen? I thought from his first reply to this question that he said "Yes", and that there had been certain private conversations from which he had learnt this information, information on which he could justify, to himself if not to the Committee, that these sums are about right.

Mr. Barber: Let me make the position crystal clear. I was approached by certain members of the Select Committee. I had private conversations with them. As a result of those conversations I approached Lord Cobbold. As a result of that, in part at any rate, when he returned to the Committee he gave further evidence. That evidence is on the record. The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question three times, and he might listen to the reply. I am not surprised that he did not understand the answer before. Everyone on the Select Committee assumed this, otherwise they would have asked me about it. I certainly have

no more knowledge of the private resources of the Queen than appears in the document and was given to the Select Committee. Therefore, for these reasons the majority of the Select Committee came to the conclusion that the figure of £980,000 was the right amount. For these reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough): There is an important point I should like right hon. Gentlemen to clarify. It has become clear that a large portion of hon. Gentlemen, mostly on this side of the Committee, are dissatisfied that there has been no disclosure as to the private fortune. It has been suggested, I think rightly, that this is the Government's fault. If the Chancellor has no information as to the nature and extent of the private fortune—which he has made clear—was it not his duty to obtain such information? If the Government had advised the Queen that such a disclosure should be made, would not that disclosure have been made?

Mr. Barber: I am not prepared to go further than to say that questions on this particular subject were put to Lord Cobbold by a number of members of the Committee, and he gave the reasons. They are on the record. I have no more knowledge than that.
In the light of all the evidence given on this subject, and taking the whole situation into account, the majority of the Committee came to the conclusion that £980,000 was the right amount. I believe that it is, and that is the issue.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thought it necessary to ask Lord Cobbold whether it would be right and proper for the Committee to have this information, or whether he felt—not what he thought that the Queen thought about it—that it was not necessary?

Mr. Barber: I can only say that I am not prepared to disclose, and this House would not expect me to disclose, private conversations with either right hon. and hon. Gentlemen or with Lord Cobbold. I did what I considered to be best in the interests of the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wants my personal opinion, the information we received from Lord Cobbold was perfectly adequate for us to reach this conclusion.

Mr. John Mendelson: As a Member who was not on the Select Committee but who remembers in some detail the discussion that took place when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor first introduced this subject before the Committee was set up, when he, as the responsible Minister, moved the Motion, I would point out that there was a slight disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Speaker at that time on the interpretation of the terms of reference of the Select Committee. The Chancellor had pointed out to the House on this very early occasion, before there were any private discussions with Privy Councillors on the Committee, as no Committee had yet been set up, that the private income of the Sovereign in his, the Chancellor's, judgment was irrelevant to the work of the Committee. One of my right hon. Friends thereupon questioned his interpretation of this particular position. Soon after that, Mr. Speaker intervened. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to give us the reply on what led him to produce his judgment before the Committee had been set up and before any discussions had taken place. This has nothing to do with any private talks that he may have had with right hon. Gentlemen on this side of Committee.
Mr. Speaker intervened to say categorically that it was up to the Committee to decide what information it would ask for; by implication, Mr. Speaker said that it was not up to the right hon. Gentleman to say what information the Committee would ask for as a Select Committee of the House and what the Committee would do in interpreting its terms of reference. The Chancellor has not yet told the House, and all hon. Members who have not been on Select Committee must ask him, therefore, to tell us categorically—there is considerable public interest in this matter—whether he, the Chancellor interpreted the views of the Members of the Select Committee, whether a majority or a minority, as to the Select Committee's terms of reference.
Did he make himself the interpreter of these views and, therefore, make an approach to the Sovereign asking that the details of the private income should be disclosed, or did he adhere to his obviously preconceived opinion, which he had expressed when he first moved

the Motion at that Box, that he thought that it was irrelevant? We have not heard a categorical reply today. We have heard much about private discussions with right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee, but that is not very important in this debate.
The private discussions that led him to have private consultations the content of which he is not prepared to disclose are unimportant. As we are dealing with Supply, with appropriation, it is his duty to proceed in the normal manner and tell the House of the approaches he made to the Sovereign. May we therefore have the reply, not about private conversations with right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee but on the request having being made in the Select Committee, after Mr. Speaker having said from the Chair that it is for the Committee to decide what is relevant and what is irrelevant and not for the Chancellor to make that decision for the Committee?
Did the Chancellor then make himself the spokesman of those Members of the Select Committee who thought that this information was relevant, and did he, therefore, make an approach to the Palace to obtain the information for the Select Committee?

Mr. Barber: As far as I recollect, on the first occasion when I brought this matter to the attention of the House, I made some observations about the matter of the Queen's private resources because I was asked a question about it, and therefore, I thought it only courteous at the time to give my immediate view. But we recognised full well that this was a matter for the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman would ask any member of that Select Committee I think that he would get the answer that the action which I took as Chairman of that Select Committee, on any occasion and in the whole course of our proceedings, was the reasonable sort of action which a Chairman should take. Certainly there was no criticism by any member of the Select Committee that I behaved improperly or did not do all that I could to try to achieve the best possible result.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I wish merely to make the briefest intervention on this important though irrelevant point of the Queen's private fortune. It is irrelevant


not only factually to our discussions, although there is a difference of opinion on that but also irrelevant constitutionally. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) censured the Government for the advice which he presumed had been tendered to the Queen by the Chancellor, namely, not to give information about her private fortune. This was the point raised by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have deserved censure had he sought to advise the Queen ministersially on that matter in any way, because there is a responsibility to give advice to the Sovereign only where there is a ministerial responsibility. On the question of the private fortune, there is no ministerial responsibility. Therefore, it would have been totally inappropriate for the Chancellor to advise Her Majesty on that point.

Mr. Crossman: To put the record straight, I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman as a statement, although I should prefer it to be regarded as a question. I thought that it was unfair to the Queen to say that she had refused the information. I preferred to make the statement of fact that the Queen was acting here on the Chancellor's advice. It would be valuable if the Chancellor would confirm my assessment.
I greatly respect the Chancellor for what he has been doing and how he behaved in the Select Committee. I am sure that he gave his advice honestly. He having said that his personal view that it was irrelevant, I take it that he made that view clear to the Monarch when she asked his advice as to whether she should give the information.

Mr. Barber: It is extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) should have made any assumption. I was not asked for any advice on this matter.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I, like other hon. Members, greatly regret the absence through ill-health of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
It was suggested at the outset by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St.

John-Stevas) and repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Amendment is arbitrary. Everything said by the Chancellor today has emphasised just how arbitrary is the sum of £980,000. The right hon. Gentleman clarified the arbitrariness of the figure by telling us that it included a sum of £160,000 which, first—by a slip of the tongue, I assume—was supposed to cover 10 years' inflation at 10 per cent. Then this was adjusted later to 5 per cent.
One wonders what the Chancellor's views are about inflation. After the last 12 months one can perhaps understand his thinking in terms of 10 per cent. Clearly, when a sum of £980,000 includes a sum of £160,000 a year for possible inflation at the rate of 5 per cent., and when during the last 12 months inflation has run at 10 per cent., one is bound to ask, even if one ignores the whole question of the taxation of private income, just how realistic the figure of £980,000 is.
There is no question of our being puritanical or mean spirited, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford has charged. My right hon. and hon. Friends who have opposed the figure all want to see the Monarchy run at a proper and adequate level. Indeed, many want to see it run at a lavish level.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) does not know, nor does any other hon. Member, whether this figure is adequate, lavish or anything else. They have said that the question of the Monarch's private resources is irrelevant. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said that other rich people are able not to pay taxes. Is it being suggested that the fact that some rich people are able legally to avoid taxation by setting up trusts, and so on, is a fair comparison with the fact that the whole of the Queen's income and capital is legally made free of tax by the Government of the day?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is at least better to make that point than simply to say that the Queen is unique in this respect. Until this matter came up recently, the Labour Party had never suggested that there was any belief on its part that action should be taken about the Queen's private fortune. We have heard about this only in the last week or so.

Mr. Barnett: I made this point constantly in Committee, as the Chancellor knows. It is surely relevant to know. when voting a figure for expenses and to meet staff wages, whether at the end of this period, whether it be 10 years or 20 years, and depending upon the level of inflation, the Queen's capital has increased or decreased because of the figure which we have voted and because the rest of her resources are free of any kind of taxation.
I do not dispute that the Chancellor played a perfectly fair rôle as Chairman of the Select Committee. However, neither the Chancellor nor the hon. Member for Chelmsford does the Monarch any service. The Chancellor did not think it right to advise the Monarch that she would be doing herself a service by disclosing details of her private resources or by agreeing to pay taxes on her income.
It is no use the hon. Member for Chelmsford saying that it is not the direct responsibility of the Chancellor so to advise the Queen. The Chancellor certainly has direct responsibility. For example, he could introduce a Clause in the Finance Bill to ensure that the whole of the Monarch's resources are made subject to taxation. Even if only in the negative sense, the Chancellor's neglect to advise the Queen to disclose her private resources does the Queen and the Monarchy a disservice.
Hon. Members who want to see the Monarchy adequately, indeed lavishly, do not know whether that is the case. They do not know whether even after this £980,000 is voted it will be necessary for the Queen to provide from her private resources to supplement her own expenditure and that of other members of the Royal Family. Therefore, hon. Members are voting for a figure which is not only arbitrary but which allows, as far as can be judged, in view of the immunity from taxation, the Queen's private capital to grow at a substantial rate. If this is not so, the Chancellor is in duty bound to say so. This figure is as arbitrary as any other. The Committee is not able to know whether the figure is justifiable.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I wish to make once more the briefest of interventions on the point raised by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), who is certainly a distinguished financier but who is not an equal authority on constitutional matters. He gave an illustration as evidence that the Chancellor was constitutionally responsible for advising on the Queen's private fortune—

Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is being a little pedantic, to put is mildly. I am not concerned with the niceties of constitutional propriety. I said that the Chancellor does the Monarchy a disservice by not advising it to disclose the information or to pay tax.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is another point. We are all aware of that point, but there are some of us who think that the constitution is important. This matter is one, not of pedantry, but of great importance as to where the competence of the House of Commons ends and that of the Monarchy begins.
The hon. Gentleman gave as proof of existing Ministerial responsibility the fact that the Chancellor could introduce legislation, and have it approved by Parliament, to subject the Queen's private fortune to the control of the House of Commons. That is a fallacious point. It is certainly a Ministerial responsibility. That would create a new position. It would not affect the existing position.
The confusion which exists in the hon. Gentleman's mind is that he thinks that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the royal merchant banker or the royal stockbroker. My right hon. Friend is not. These are matters for which there is no Ministerial responsibility; they are purely within the competence of the Monarch.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John D. Grant: There is a feeling on this side of the Committee that we should divide on the Question. It is not that we seek to deny an annual payment to the Queen but simply that we cannot accept the figure of £980,000.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

FURTHER PROVISION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY

Mr. John D. Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Future provision for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother shall be £7,500 per annum.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. With this Amendment it is convenient to take the following Amendments:

No. 7, in line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) Future provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester shall be nil.

No. 8, in line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
 (3) Future provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shall be £20,000 a year.

No. 9, in line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) No provision needs to be made yet for any of Her Majesty's younger children, and accordingly section 4(1) of the Civil List Act 1952 is hereby repealed.

No. 10, in line 23, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) Future provision for Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret shall be nil.

No. 11, in line 27, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
(6) All provision made for the widow of the Duke of Cornwall is hereby repealed.

No. 13, in line 32, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£5,000'.

No. 14, in line 36, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£312'.

Mr. Grant: I would like to look in a little more detail at the job being done by the Royals. The Chancellor said earlier that their activities are on the increase. In dealing with this Amendment, I will have to mention the Queen's activities because they are relevant to the amounts to be paid, particularly to Prince Philip, and to the work-load which the Royals share. In a recent colour supplement the Sunday Times examined what it called a typical day for the Royals. This is what it found. The Queen had two appointments, one an investiture for 176 people at 11 o'clock and the other a meeting with the Prime

Minister at 6 o'clock in the evening. In the time between she spent an hour with her dressmaker, she met the Keeper of the Privy Purse and had tea with Lord Mountbatten.
Princess Anne, who is now to get £15,000 a year under these proposals, launched a racing yacht at Portsmouth and left for home by helicopter at 3.30, although it is fair to say that we are told that as she is getting older she is taking over more engagements. The Queen Mother, now to get £95,000 a year, apparently spent the morning resting. She then received a shamrock from an Irish Guards' colonel, she went to a private wedding and then she left for Cheltenham Races. Prince Charles was then at Cranwell. Princess Margaret —£29,000 is proposed for her—went to a charity concert. I know it is said that a lot of this kind of activity must be a terrible bore to the Royal Family, all this pomp and ceremony, hand-shaking and so on, and that they really ought to be well paid for doing these chores. Perhaps that might be told to the miners, the electricity workers or the pensioners who find nothing more boring than sitting at home shivering because they cannot afford money for the heating.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is really talking a lot of nonsense. May I re-emphasise that when he is speaking in terms of these sums of money going to individuals, he should make the point that it is really going to the staff they employ.

Mr. Grant: We were told on Second Reading that the majority of the staff of the Royals were unpaid. I do not know how that is equated with what the hon. Gentleman says. If we do not like the Sunday Times colour supplement, if that is a lot of rubbish, let us come up to date. I have been looking at the Court Circular and Social Engagements which appear in The Times. That shows that on 1st and 2nd January, a Sunday, understandably they had no engagements. On 3rd and 4th January there were no engagements.
On 5th January there was a sudden flurry of Royal activity. The Duke of Edinburgh went to the pictures. He attended the premiere of a film at the Carlton Theatre which some people might say was appropriately titled


"Living Free". Princess Margaret and the Earl of Snowdon opened the International Boat Show. I suppose that they could have got the Prime Minister to do that for nothing. They went on to see "Living Free" in the evening. I do not know what they hope to learn but I think it is a film about lions.
The Duchess of Gloucester received some military gentlemen who were changing their jobs within the Royal Corps of Transport, and then she went to a performance given by the London Orpheus Choir. That seems to have been quite a big day in the Royal calendar for January. On 6th January the Queen conferred a knighthood on Sir Christopher Soames—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that Clause 2 refers only to members of the Royal Household. Therefore any reference to Her Majesty the Queen would be out of order.

Mr. Grant: I said that it seemed that it would not be possible to talk about the work-load shared by members of the Royal Family without making some reference to the Queen. I would have thought that was relevant to the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: However that may be, it does not happen to be in Clause 2 and we are debating Clause 2.

Mr. Grant: I will continue, leaving out the Queen. On 7th January, nothing; 8th January, nothing; 9th January, nothing. On the 10th I could mention Prince William of Gloucester but he is not mentioned in the Clause either so I will leave him out. On 11th January, there was nothing except for the Queen. On 12th January the Duke of Edinburgh flew in Concorde. Princess Margaret returned by train to London from Sandringham with her children. so the Court Circular says. I do not know whether that counts as an engagement. On 13th January, nothing; 14th January, nothing. On the 15th Princess Anne inaugurated the St. John Ambulance City headquarters at Norwich and lunched at the City Hall. Later she attended a ceremony at Norwich Cathedral On 16th January, nothing; 17th January, nothing; 18th January, nothing.
I do not know whether this was a typical period in the activities of the Royals. It may be that they hibernate for part of the winter.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Like we do.

Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself. I do not hibernate. I have a very busy constituency. Leaving out Prince William and Prince Charles, for whom there are separate arrangements, it seems that so far this month there have been something like eight engagements shared by members of the Royal Family. At a very rough calculation based on the total payment to them of just over £1 million—this includes the Queen, the Queen Mother, the Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Anne, Princess Margaret, the Duke of Gloucester—it works out at something between £5,000 and £6,000 per engagement in direct payments. If that is to be regarded as an average monthly output, without taking account of the indirect expenses involved, then for that sort of money I would go to the pictures any time whether to see "Clockwork Orange" or Mickey Mouse. On this basis most of the Royals are well qualified for unemployment benefit.
Those figures do not seem to relate to those in the Appendices in the Civil List, where the engagements seem very impressive. They make me wonder what a close analysis of those engagements would show. It may be that the Royals have not got up steam so far in 1972. It seems that they will have to dash about a bit from now on if they are to match what we have been told is their past productivity record. To use a well-known ducal phrase, they will have to get their collective finger out.
Dealing with some particular rises I should have thought that the increase for the Queen Mother at a time when her activities are understandably decreasing makes no sense at all. I am certainly unable to understand why the Duke of Gloucester should get an increase. It seems unnecessary, unless it were to be in some pensionable form and that, I gather, is not the intention. This family is surely well removed from the Throne and it does not seem to make good sense to throw public money away like that.
I have some regard for the Duke of Edinburgh. He has probably been responsible, more than anyone else in Royal circles in recent years, for brushing away a few of the cobwebs, although only a few I am afraid. I cannot believe that on the evidence supplied to the Select Committee—or not supplied to the Select Committee—he needs a rise. It seems ludicrous to suggest that his activities can be separated from those of the Queen. Presumably they endowed each other with all their worldly goods "for richer and for poorer" and I cannot understand why it should he felt that he does not enjoy to the full the benefits of the untaxed income we have discussed. We do not know the size of the fortune and the tax relief but I would have thought that what has been said about the Queen in that respect must also apply to the Duke, certainly in practice if not in theory.
6.30 p.m.
Princess Margaret is joining in the payout in a big way. This does not seem to be justified in the light of the work which she appears to do. I do not see how it can be suggested that she should get an increase of the kind proposed. She has the bonus of a free house, free light and free heat which is worth a lot of money. It would be worth a lot of money to anyone who lived in a council house let alone a palace. It may be arguable whether she should get anything, but I cannot see that she is entitled to a thumping great rise of this kind. A number of my hon. Friends feel particularly strongly about this proposal and are likely to divide the Committee on it.
Whatever is felt about the Monarchy and the proposed increases in pay, particularly for the Queen, there is a strong feeling that the financing of what have become known as the "hangers-on"—a phrase which is widely used nowadays—should be reduced and that much of the Royal expenditure in that respect could be legitimately pruned. It is in that spirit —and perhaps the Committee will accept that I say this with no malice towards any of the individuals concerned—that I hope the Amendment will be supported.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Earlier today I made a formal expression of regret at the absence of the hon. Member for Fife. West (Mr. William Hamilton). Having

heard the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant), I regret much more than formally the absence of the hon. Member for Fife, West because his attacks are so much better than the attack to which we have just listened.
To pick out, as the hon. Member for Islington, East did, an unrepresentative month—January—when members of the Royal Family were, as he knows, like ourselves, absent from public duties is to distort the issue. We must consider the evidence over the period of a year which is given in the report on the Civil List. The engagements are there listed for all the members of the Royal Family. If one reads the report of our Committee one will see the amount of work they do. That is a fairer way of looking at the matter than one gets from the hon. Gentleman's attempt to distort the picture.

Mr. John D. Grant: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman does in the recesses. I always resent it when people tell me that I am on holiday. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much time he spends on what might loosely be called public duties—that is, constituency duties? Does he hibernate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is is very appealing to try to convert this debate into a debate on my duties in my constituency, and I should be delighted to do so, but it would hardly command rapturous applause. I made passing reference to the matter. I did not go into a great thesis about what I did in the recess. In fact, I was working every day. I merely said that right hon. and hon. Members were absent from public duties in that period and that we must take that into account when considering what the Royal Family did during the period to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which was quite unrepresentative.
We must be accurate and fair in our criticisms. It is innaccurate for the hon. Member for Islington, East to say that Princess Margaret has a free house, free light and free heat. She has a free house, it is true, but she pays rates on it. She pays for her lighting and heating. If she did not, those services would be cut off. What the hon. Member for Islington, East said was the sort of distortion which people must not be allowed to get away with.
We must stick to the facts. If one points out the facts, one is dismissed as a Royal sycophant. I do not mind that; I am perfectly prepared to be abused in such a good cause. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has adopted this attitude, telling me that I am always on my knees—if not before the Pope, then before the Queen. If he was on his knees to anyone at any time it would be very good for his soul and might improve his circulation.
I wish to deal briefly with the question of the Queen Mother's Household, which is the subject of one of the Amendments. It is proposed that provision for her should be reduced to £7,500 a year. Why has that figure been chosen? It is no good the hon. Members who have sponsored these Amendments saying that the purpose was merely to get a debate going. If that were so, they would have tabled an Amendment to reduce the sum by £1; that would have been sufficient to get a debate going. The figure of £7,500 must have been chosen with some purpose in mind; it must have been calculated on some basis. It makes the issue quite derisory to propose to reduce to £7,500 a year provision which at the moment is £70,000 and which it is proposed to increase to £95,000. This ignores completely the Queen Mother's position.
The Queen Mother is voted a sum of this size because she is a former Queen Consort. Hers is a unique position. She has lived as Queen Consort in a state required of her by the people over whom she reigned and it is perfectly proper that in her retirement the manner of life which she follows should bear some relation to her previous position. That is a justification for the provision. It is perfectly reasonable and rational; there is nothing mystical about it. I believe that most reasonable people would think it appropriate.
We have heard much about the Queen Mother's Household in these debates. I wish to go into this question in some detail because false impressions have been created and they have not been corrected. The hon. Member for Fife, West, when he launched his diatribe against the Queen Mother's Household in a previous debate, said that he had checked his facts. He did not check very well, because he gave an impression to

the House and to the country which was totally misleading. One can gauge the degree of his researches when one realises that one of the ladies to whom he referred has been dead for a considerable number of years. He further confused the issue by mixing up the honorary and paid officials. We have had an echo of the hon. Gentleman's approach today in the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East.
Critics of the Royal Family do this sort of thing because it enables them to have the best of both worlds. They can present the Royal Family as being both antiquated and expensive if they mix up the question of the honorary officials with the question of paid officials. Every official household—and this applies to all the members of the Royal Family who have officials—is divided into paid officials and honorary officials.
Let me deal with the paid officials in the Queen Mother's Household. She has a private secretary, an assistant private secretary and a Press secretary. That is not excessive in view of the public duties in which she is involved. She has a treasurer who looks after her financial affairs and deals with the 300 societies of which she is a patron. She has a Comptroller of the Household who looks after her house, pictures, employees, and so on. Helping on the clerical side are three clerks and three typists. That is the extent of the paid part of her Household. No reasonable person would think that it was particularly excessive.
Turning to the part-time officials of the Household, we come to the famous Women of the Bedchamber about whom we have heard so much. A great deal of fun has been made about them and perhaps, in view of their title, it is legitimate up to a point. But who are these Women of the Bedchamber? They are hardworking women who are paid modest sums and who help with the charity and secretarial work. They deal with the private correspondence; they deal with questions of welfare. They work a fortnight in turn; there are four of them, so that they work for one-quarter of the year each. It is easy to make fun of them because of the use of this rather archaic nomenclature, and so to have a joke, but it is not justified. It is harmful to do this because it is not true but is a distortion of the position. We can make fun,


for example, of the Apothecary to the Household. Who is he? He is a National Service doctor lurking under that title.
We have heard a lot about the extra Women of the Bedchamber. There has been a considerable amount of mirth in this Chamber about them. I remember that the hon. Member for Fife, West asked what was the size of the bed chamber. But he knew, or he ought to have known, what the word "extra" means in this context. It means "retired". It means that those who have faithfully served the Household for a great many years, perhaps for the greater part of their lives, are given this honorific title in their retirement. But who are these extra Women of the Bedchamber? They are—may be—ladies of advanced years, to whom this title gives some innocent pleasure. It is quite absurd to attack them, to begrudge them this recognition after the years of service which they have given.
There are other honorary members of the Household—the Lord Chamberlain, the Mistress of the Robes. They are all those who give services and who charge absolutely nothing for them.
So that the actual position, as one sees if one examines it in detail, is completely different from the picture which is presented by the hon. Member for Islington, East and the hon. Member for Fife, West and the others who give us a picture of a plethora of flunkies in describing, as they do, those who are by their titles perhaps archaic relics of another age, but who are in fact hard-working people with titles. It may be amusing to make fun of them, but truth has some claims and I think it is right to put this particular record straight.
As for the actual sums of money involved, the wages of the staff in these Households, all of them, absorb virtually all the present annuity and it would be totally impracticable to reduce the global sum. All we should do, if we were to do that, would be to find no one to do their work, or else we would find people having to work for starvation wages.
Let me turn briefly to the position of Prince Philip, because he was mentioned with qualified admiration by the hon. Member for Islington, East. These are issues which have been raised and they

must be answered, and they must be answered not out of emotion but out of knowledge.

Mr. Orme: Apologist.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: An apologist, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, is one who puts forward a spirited defence of a position, but I am not apologising for anything.

Mr. Orme: But well briefed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am very grateful for that compliment. I briefed myself, but anyone can look up these facts if he wants to.
I want to deal briefly with the position of Prince Philip. Since 1950—and this is in the report, which can be read but does not seem to have been read by hon. Members opposite—he has carried out over 100 major foreign tours, in addition to the tours carried out with the Queen. These are tours which are extremely tiring and taxing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Yes, they are. There is a myth around that foreign travel is somehow enjoyable. It is not so. Amongst other things it involves a number of adjustments because of time changes, and it involves interference with one's normal life. Most of it is a sheer hard slog. That is true. If one looks at the list of domestic engagements one finds, not the truncated list of engagements produced by the hon. Member for Islington, East but 807 engagements in the 12 months of 1970. That means two or three engagements a day. Could anybody ask any human being to do more than that?
In addition, Prince Philip is the patron of 382 organisations, all of which make demands. Again this is an immense burden of work, discharged by a very small Household, the present grant for which is absorbed in wages; the present grant for that Household is almost entirely absorbed in wages and salaries. The present increase for the Duke of Edinburgh, if spread over the years percentagewise since the last Civil List, would mean an increase of 2½ per cent. a year. That is not an excessive increase.
These are the facts. Hon. Members opposite may not like the facts, they may not like to hear them, but these are facts of the situation and they cannot be got away from.
It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that they are all in favour of the Queen and then getting up and presenting her relations as parasites. That is the merest humbug and hypocrisy. They cannot have it both ways. They should look at the facts, and the facts justify this provision.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I should like first of all to answer some of the points which have been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). His was, again, a very elegant speech indeed. He really made me feel that he is royal. There is not a fete he could not open, a church service he could not attend, without distinction, and play the royal rôle. He is by nature royal. He has got an elegant and a futile element, an element which is so important in making one feel he is genuinely royal and therefore impotent.

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman was Lord President.

Mr. Crossman: I was never naturally a Lord President of the Council. That came to me most unnaturally.
The hon. Member spoke, I was glad to hear, with such depth of feeling. Now, having said that, I would say to him, hoping he will not be embarrassed to hear it, that I agree with him on one or two points.
I want to make it perfectly clear that if we are to have a vote on any one of these Amendments I myself shall not vote for that Amendment because I personally think that Member unworthy. One way we cannot treat the Royal Family is to seem to say that we like somebody or dislike somebody in it. We cannot seriously do that. What we have seriously to ask ourselves is whether there is something old-fashioned about our present institution and whether for that reason we should change it, and change it considerably.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the Queen Mother; that is to say, she is a retired Queen and in a position very different from that of anybody else in the country. I accept the fact that a Queen should be paid a sufficient sum in her retirement to keep her

in the station to which she was called. I am not arguing in detail whether the sum of money suggested is right. I accept the case for a Prince Consort who works as hard as ours does, and who, clearly, ought to be paid by us. I see the reason for that.
We would except the Prince of Wales because he is already a millionaire twenty times over, so there is no need to pay him anything, or his widow one day. That seems ridiculous, but the Prince Consort and the Queen Mother should be included in the Civil List.
The question I want to raise is whether the Civil List should go beyond those two, whether all the brothers and sisters, and all the sons and daughters, should be encouraged to remain royal. I would have thought that, if one is not doomed to succeed, one's greatest hope would be to cease to be royal and to be able to become a normal human being—for a girl, to marry a non-royal and get out of royalty, and for a man, to earn his living, as Swedish royalty do.
I regard it as seriously wrong, therefore, to extend this idea of salary or payment—whatever it is—to the Royal Family for services as though on a par with the Queen, beyond the narrow need to look after the Prince of Wales, the Prince Consort, whoever he may be, and any retired Queen. In my view, no one else should be treated in the same way.
I take Princess Alexandra as an example because she is a very gracious lady, a lady whom no one could possibly criticise. She is a Royal who pays out in wages, I think, £10,000 a year. She is married, I believe, to a wealthy man who can well afford to keep her and give her any number of Rolls-Royces, but she has an extra Rolls-Royce and an extra driver for what amount, in fact, to but a few occasions each year. It seems to me that this sort of thing is slightly ridiculous.
The job of attending 30, 40, or 50 occasions a year of one sort or another is a job which Ministers are well used to throwing into a full-scale life. In the ordinary way a departmental Minister will spend the best part of one day a week on services not dissimilar to those done by the small Royals. A Minister knows, for example, that when


he opens a hospital his job is to take the place of the Royal that the people there tried to get but could not. Ministers only open places which Royals will not open. They do exactly the same job. It is done as part of the job of Minister, and no one suggests that there should be special consideration and payment for it.
Let us keep the thing in proportion. Attending occasions of this kind is not the most arduous part of a Minister's life. He manages to work six days a week, either here or in the Ministry, and to throw the seventh in on the "Royal" business. But is is regarded as full-time work for the Royals. It is whole-time for the Queen and for the Prince Consort, and it was for the Queen Mother when she was younger, but it is certainly not for many of the junior Royals. They should not be paid these sums. If they do the job, they can be paid expenses, and they can have one of the Royal Rolls-Royces lent to them for the occasion.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if his wife was wealthy and could afford several Rolls-Royces, his Ministerial car should be taken from him when he went to open a hospital?

Mr. Crossman: I did not say that. When I am a Minister, I have a Ministerial car, and I do not have it for any other reason. These people should have the equivalent of a Ministerial car lent to them when they are being Royal in public, just as I have a Ministerial car only for my Ministerial work and not for my private life. They have them for their private life as well. There is all the difference. [An HON. MEMBER: "SO what?"] These small things matter. Where do we draw the line?
If we want to have a Royal Family, we must pay them generously and properly, but then we should cut it and say that at this point it stops: the nephews and neices, the brothers and sisters, can jolly well settle down and live outside the glare as far as possible, and, if they go out on Royal duties on a few days a year, they can have their expenses covered in the normal way.
If it is then said that these people really should remain Royal and be part

of the Court, I reply in this way. The Queen should pay. So long as the Queen has a huge private fortune, on which she pays no tax, she is plainly wealthy enough to sustain a large family. In the past, this is what was done. One of the jobs of the Monarch was to look after the indigent Royals. They were looked after in the Court. There is nothing improper in the suggestion that the Queen's large untaxed resources should be used to sustain the Royal Family's indigent relatives.
Let us consider the case of the Prince Consort. He came from a poor family of indigent Balkan monarchs, and I do not imagine that he brought a large sum with him to the Queen. He did not need to, because she is one of the wealthiest women in the world. It seems to me ridiculous that, in assessing what he needs, we have to take account not only of what he needs but of a further sum sufficient for him to be able to save each year and invest for his old age. It is quite unreal. I doubt that he will have to live alone in old age. He will not; he will be with the Queen.
I do not understand why, in the case of the Royals, we have to assess their needs in terms of sums sufficient for them to be allowed to save. It does not make sense. They are part of the Royal Family, and the Queen at the centre of the Royal Family should provide for them.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said at an earlier stage, "Poor Queen. What can she do? She got not a penny since the time when she came to the Throne". What an innocent the hon. Gentleman is. If one is the wealthiest woman in Britain, if one is not taxed, if one pays no capital gains tax, what one gains by the automatic increase of one's capital year by year is far greater than what we pay by the Civil List.
It is untrue to say that the Queen has received nothing since she came to the Throne. She has received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tax concessions each year worth several millions of pounds.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Labour Chancellors, too.

Mr. Crossman: Successive Chancellors, of course. I am not making a Party point. Chancellors of the Exchequer have subsidised the Queen by allowing her not to be taxed. In the same way an owner-occupier is subsidised by the Chancellor when he is not required to pay Schedule A tax. We all know this, and we can calculate the amount of money the owner-occupier actually receives by not paying Schedule A tax or by not paying income tax on his mortgage interest payments. These tax concessions amount to hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and we admit frankly to one another that these people are receiving big subsidies from the Chancellor just as genuinely as council house tenants have the benefit of certain subsidies.
But the Queen's subsidy from the Chancellor is infinitely greater because she has a vast private fortune and the accumulated income from that fortune swells year by year.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Queen and her emoluments are not covered by this Clause.

Mr. Crossman: I am dealing with the question whether we can afford to cut the cost of payments to the Royals, Mr. Mallalieu, and I am answering the argument that it would be an unjust burden to impose on the Queen. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford made that point at an earlier stage when, perhaps, you were not in the Chair. It is important to have this matter clear. I am saying that we should transfer the burden to the Queen's private income, and I suggest that we could regard that as perfectly proper, knowing that she has benefited over the period since she came to the Throne to the extent of huge sums of automatic accumulation as a result of her freedom from tax.
I have made the point, Mr. Mallalieu, and I am grateful to you for allowing me to complete it. I regard it as important to understand that there would be no kind of hardship involved. I am in favour of having the Queen's income taxed, though we should then, I agree, have to pay more to the Royals to look after them. If we want to do that, we can decide that for ourselves; but so long as

hon. Members opposite want to have them, the Queen can easily pay for them.

Mr. Orme: I do not think it is generally realised that there is considerable criticism in the country of the remuneration which certain members of the Royal Family receive and of the services which they give in return for that remuneration. We can argue about the principal of having the Queen, and we know what public reaction is generally on that, but if one talks to people in the constituencies, as I have, one finds that they are highly critical of what seems to be substantial public expenditure for this purpose, and expenditure which is on the increase. Naturally, with the children now growing up, the demand on the Civil List will call for more Government expenditure.
I do not see why many of these young people could not be gainfully employed. They have had a reasonable education and they could make their own way in the world as other children do. They would not be put at any disadvantage. They are a family with considerable private wealth, and, if necessary, they can be assisted. This is the sort of development which makes people cast their eyes at monarchies in Sweden and Denmark which are far less expensive than ours. This is what brings attacks upon individuals.
7.0 p.m.
I do not want to name any individual. I am making a point of principle. I am not dealing with X or Y or comparing one with the other and the amount of work which each does. Since the publication of the Civil List Bill and our debate, it can be seen from opinion polls and other reactions that the public are getting increasingly uneasy.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) thought that the older section of the community were parsimonious and the younger people were in favour of more lavish expenditure. But it is the younger people who would say that the brothers, sisters, nephews, and so on, should stand on their own feet and not be subsidised by the State. Older people, because of their own situation, might criticise any increase which they feel is unfair, but the younger people would see the danger of proliferation.
On the next time round, I do not think it will be possible for a similar report


to be brought before the House and debated. The British public will demand a much more open and critical approach. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he was being criticised about the manner in which he handled the chairmanship of the Select Committee. I have read the report and the debates of the Select Committee and, apart from the private fortune not being made known as it should have been, everything was done correctly and I do not criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally.
If one looks at past history, one realises that the debate tonight has been on a low key. It is interesting to note that the pressure is coming from outside and not being led by hon. Members. We are making our criticisms in these Amendments not of individuals but of the principle. I suggest that the people who advise the Government on these issues should be wary about the advice they give, because the British public are looking at this issue and will continue to do so. They will demand that members of the Royal Family should be treated reasonably and properly but at the same time be allowed to stand on their own feet, play their part in the community and not be dependent upon State subsidies.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has made a very reasonable speech, putting forward the view that brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces and so on should not be supported by the State. I do not say that I agree with him. If he thinks that, that is the way to approach it; but that is not what we are discussing now.
We have a Monarchy which is not just the Monarch, the Consort or the Queen Mother, but the whole Royal Family. If that is what we have and what we want, we must provide the finances to keep it going. As I said on Second Reading, over the centuries the Monarchy has changed and, if the British people want to change it further and these views are put forward reasonably through Parliament, there is no reason why it should not be changed. While we have a Monarchy which is buttressed by the whole of the Royal Family, we must finance it properly.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) went much further.

He spoke of a Monarchy of three, the Monarch, the Consort and possibly the Queen Mother, but that would make the Monarchy much weaker—

Mr. Crossman: The Prince of Wales, too.

Captain Elliot: And the Prince of Wales. The net effect of all these groups of Amendments is to weaken the Monarchy.
We have heard what the right hon. Member for Coventry, East said about disclosing the Queen's private fortune. I am sure that, once that fortune was disclosed, he would insist on its being taxed. That would undoubtedly remove the Queen's financial independence and the Monarchy would be made into a Government Department under the tight control of the Government of the day. The whole trend of these Amendments is aimed at weakening the Monarchy in that way, and for that reason I shall oppose the Amendments.
The hon. Member for Salford, West put forward his argument in a reasonable way, but the inaccurate, extravagant and rather arrogant language used by some hon. Members opposite is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Despite what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), I think it can be said that every debate on this subject deepens the dissatisfaction felt by some of us about the way the whole process is conducted. I believe that this feeling will grow and that something on the lines of what I put to the Select Committee—a proposal which was adopted by the Opposition as their official position on the matter in earlier proceedings on the Bill—will come about. I do not believe it will be possible to carry on as we are now.
Under my scheme this Clause would have been mainly unnecessary. Provision for members of the Royal Family could have been made under those proposals out of revenues of the two Duchies and out of other resources which the Royal Family have. If the Monarch was adequately provided for and if there was constant vigilance over expenditure and provision for it, there would be no need to make pre-emptive bids for the future against inflation by providing a margin


for savings later on. This is the basis on which we are undertaking this process at present. We are pre-empting all the time against the continuance of inflation and, therefore, making more generous provision now than is really necessary in order to have funds in hand to be drawn upon later if need be.
Another feeling of unease about the Clause of this kind is that it can become invidious. Amendments can be tabled to reduce the allowance of one member of the Royal Family from £50,000 to nil, or from £20,000 to £7,000, or any figure that comes to mind. This exposes the whole process to some of the undesirable features of parliamentary procedure.
I have worked out from the figures given in the Select Committee Report that what we need for the Queen Mother, the Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Anne, Princess Margaret, and the Duke of Gloucester under these proposals is a total of £255,000 a year. Then there is provision for younger sons at 18 before marriage, £20,000; younger sons after marriage, £50,000; daughters at age 18 and before marriage. £15,000; daughters after marriage, £35.000; and the widow of the Prince of Wales. £60,000 a year. This is what we are having to provide for in the Bill.
If we add the second half of the sum it would appear to be around £150,000 a year, depending on the number of children and the possibility of certain contingencies arising. In that case a sum of roughly £400,000 per year will be needed to cover all the provision required in Clause 2. This could have been done from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, which I would have left undisturbed as a means of providing the Royal Family with these additional resources. A Royal Family trust to provide for the distribution of responsibilities and income among members of the Royal Family would be a more satisfactory way than identifying particular members and making special provision for them.
In the Gracious Message which the Queen sent to the House, she asked that provision be made for Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester or any future wife of a younger son in the event of any of them surviving her husband. We then see in the Report:

Your Committee are satisfied of the need for such a provision and propose that the annual amount payable in these circumstances should be fixed at £20,000.
In fact, the Select Committee was satisfied by a narrow majority on a number of matters, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to the majority of the Select Committee he must bear in mind that he had a very critical element on the Committee and that, although we made his task comparatively pleasant, nevertheless we had strong reservations, as he well knows.
7.15 p.m.
Furthermore, with this kind of provision large sums are allotted to a Royal Family no matter what its size. Queen Victoria had nine children. I believe that if the present Monarch and her Consort had nine children, they would be deserving of the strongest criticism for setting a bad example to the people. I do not think a Royal Family that chose to have a lot of children should come on the State for £20,000 each for some, £50,000 for others, and £35,000 for others. I do not regard this as a responsible approach to provision for the Royal Family.
I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) or with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that members of the Royal Family should go out into the harsh world of commerce and enterprise to earn their own living. I have some misgivings about that. I am not sure that we would like to see a member of the Royal Family on television telling us that something washes whiter than white. I am not sure that it would be desirable for a member of the Royal Family to be engaged in a commercial enterprise which, although quite appropriate for an ordinary citizen, would not be regarded as quite suitable for members of the Royal Family.

Mr. Orme: One member of the Royal Family already engages in commercial pursuits—that is to say, in the Press. Surely my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that members of the Royal Family who are not in direct line to the Throne should be denied the freedom and the right as individuals perhaps to make the same mistakes or the same successes as every other person in the community has the chance to do.

Mr. Houghton: The moment one mentions any particular aspect one sees how controversy begins in these matters since there are many opinions on this subject. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I am talking about the children of the Monarch, not about the husbands of children of the Monarch. I am talking of those who are members of the Royal Family. There is a distinction. We make provision for Princess Margaret because she is a daughter of a Monarch and direct children of the Royal Family are provided for and, in a few cases, their spouses. Whatever is done about this matter, there are bound to be difficulties.
I have always had reservations about the tax position. If one taxes people they must be free to do what other taxpayers can do—and what other taxpayers do does not always receive the approbation of the House of Commons. We do not want to see Royal tax evasion on a vast scale. There are considerations which have to be borne in mind if the dignity and position of the Royal Family is to be maintained. When I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the betterment levy came up, I was firmly of the opinion that it should not apply literally to the Duchy. However, I was of opinion—and it was provided for in the Act—that a payment should be made in lieu of the betterment levy which would otherwise be levied on any other citizen, and it was to be of an amount agreed with the Treasury. That was a sensible way of proceeding and would be the best way of dealing with taxation if ever we seriously came to consider how it should be done, otherwise one exposes the Monarchy to the Administration in an undesirable way and precludes them from behaving as ordinary citizens in dealing with their tax affairs. However, there it is. We have to do all these things under Clause 2 if we are to implement the Report of the Select Committee.
We on this side of the Committee have a free vote on these matters. However, I find it difficult to vote against the Clause as a whole because it makes quite necessary provision in some cases. I find it difficult to single out one member of the Royal Family and to give him or her an adverse report of some kind. In those circumstances, like many of my hon. Friends, I shall have to refrain from

voting. My own view was put fully to the Select Committee in an elaborate alternative proposal which, I believe, would have provided a better way of dealing with this matter. One day it will come. Until then we shall have to try to get by.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Houghton: I have sat down.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) put forward his views with his usual moderation and courtesy. I feel that it was in marked contrast with the speech of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) whose remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) were both nasty and despicable.
In putting forward his proposals once again, which in effect are for a Department of the Crown, the right hon. Member for Sowerby is repeating a proposal that we considered with immense care during the deliberations of the Select Committee. In principle, it was the main issue that we discussed. We considered a variety of ways of dealing with the problem but, at the end of the day, the choice came down, broadly speaking, to the proposals that the majority eventually put forward in the Select Committee's Report or the proposals carefully worked out by the right hon. Gentleman.
It was the main issue that we discussed when we debated the Select Committee's Report, and I referred to it again an hour or so ago when we debated the group of Amendments on Clause 1. I am sure that every Member of the Select Committee will agree when I say that any system had both its advantages and disadvantages. On balance, I believe that the system which has been put before the Committee is preferable to the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I have never been one of those who have said that the right hon. Gentleman's alternative is totally unacceptable for basic reasons. In the main, I believe that it is a matter of judgment as to which choice one makes and, for the reasons which I have deployed on other occasions, I think that the proposals now before the Committee are the better ones.
I can deal briefly with this group of Amendments. First, there is in the Select


Committee's Report and in the evidence appended to it a very considerable amount of detail which bears upon the individuals covered in Clause 2. I want therefore to refer to the salient points which I believe that the Committee should take into account.
The first point to be recognised is that, in these Amendments, we are considering the expenses of State, in other words, of carrying out Royal duties. Anyone looking at the evidence appended to the Select Committee's Report will agree that there was considerable probing of witnesses asking for details about the way in which some of these individuals performed their functions and what was involved. It is also important to recognise that these individuals have to meet all the costs of carrying out Royal duties except that of rail travel, which is covered separately.
It is also relevant to bear in mind that the proposed increases in the amounts are much less than the increases in costs since 1952. Salaries and wages, which are the main item, have gone up by more than 200 per cent. since then, but the increase in the annuities proposed are all very much less than that. Consequently, in all these cases, the increased annuities will be worth less in real terms than the annuities which were granted in 1952.
I accept that some hon. Members still think that they are excessive or take a more extreme view and think that these individuals should be provided with nothing at all, in which case they would not be able to carry out these duties.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman said that the sums proposed would not meet the costs of the increases, which are more than 200 per cent. However, there is at least one increase which is well over 300 per cent. May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to subsection (5)?

Mr. Barber: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that in each case the increase proposed is less than the increase in costs since 1952. I have the specific percentages available if the hon. Gentleman wants them.
The point to bear in mind is that the primary purpose of the annuities is to cover the expenses of Royal duties. In

that connection I shall quote a few lines from the Report of the Select Committee. In paragraph 32 one reads:
Your Committee have been provided with evidence of the duties carried out by those for whom this provision is made and Your Committee are satisfied that the amounts currently provided are inadequate.
That is a matter of judgment, of course. But the report goes on:
This is also evident from the fact that, in three cases"—
there are five people receiving annunities at the moment—
…the Treasury had used the powers mentioned in paragraph 5 to exempt the whole amount from tax and that in the other two cases the amount exempted was 80 per cent. and almost 95 per cent respectively.
If one is trying to form an honest judgment about whether these amounts are appropriate, it is important to recognise and to accept that the annuities are only free of tax to the extent that they can be shown to be wholly dispersed on expenses of State. The words of the Income Tax Act are:
…expenses which are wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties in respect of which the annuities are payable".
The Permanent Under-Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Douglas Allen, who is known to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, was asked to give evidence to the Select Committee inter alia on this point. He explained:
When a request is made for us to consider the figure"—
the figure of tax allowance—
…and increase it, the household concerned submits to us full information about its expenditure, which we examine very carefully and critically, to make certain that it is genuinely incurred, and we may in fact before that happens have given advice about the scale of provision of certain services which the household had.
That was in answer to specific questions on this point. In answer to a further question, Sir Douglas confirmed that officials would
…think it perfectly proper to query whether a particular head of expenditure ought more properly to be regarded as personal as opposed to public … (and) … to query why a particular figure for a particular item of expenditure had greatly increased over a period of a year or two years".
If the Committee is trying to come to a genuine conclusion on the adequacy or otherwise of the amounts referred to in


the Clause and in the Amendments, it is a matter of the highest relevance that, in the cases of the present five annuitants, the Treasury exempted the whole amount from tax in three and exempted 80 per cent. and almost 95 per cent. respectively in the other two, and did so on the basis that the Treasury was satisfied that the amounts involved were
…wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties in respect of which the annuities are payable".
I believe this to be a matter of great importance if we are to try to reach an honest and genuine conclusion on this subject.
7.30 p.m.
The existing tax allowances which these individuals are getting at present on this basis will not be automatically increased to correspond with the increased annuities, because each Household will have to submit a claim supported by detailed expenditure figures if it wants an allowance increased.
The real issue is whether we believe that the extent of the duties performed by members of the Royal Family, taken as a whole, are excessive or could be cut down. We should make no mistake about this matter, bearing in mind that the minutes of evidence show the five annuitants concerned between them carried out nearly 1,500 engagements in 1970, whatever one may say about particular engagements. We can poke fun at right hon. and hon. Members for some of the functions which they perform in their constituencies. It is easy to mock, but this is not our concern. There is no possibility whatever of the Queen taking on a further burden of duties even beginning to match the duties at present being done by other members of the Royal Family.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East, who was once in charge of the Department of Health and Social Security, is muttering away as I make this point. But, naturally and rightly, he said that when he was asked to open a hospital, as I was when Minister of Health, in many cases, if not all, some member of the Royal Family would have been preferred. That does not just mean the Queen or the other two members of the Royal Family mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman; it includes the people mentioned in the Clause.
It may he said that they should not be doing that; they should be doing a job of work and earning their living. I entirely disagree. It can only be a matter of judgment, but I believe that the British people much prefer that members of the Royal Family should open their hospitals than the right hon. Gentleman or myself. If this is what the people want, why should we not pay members of the Royal Family to undertake these engagements?
I can well understand hon. Gentlemen opposite sneering at this suggestion, but, when requests come in for these functions to be performed, in almost every case, as the right hon. Member for Coventry, East stated, if they involve matters of any significance, they are requests for members of the Royal Family to carry them out.

Mr. Orme: No one is sneering. We are making critical comments. We are concerned with a basic principle. How far does the right hon. Gentleman want to see this practice extended? Does he want it extended to cousins and second cousins? How many people will be involved? When people ask for members of the Royal Family to perform these functions, they probably do not take into account the cost to the nation. Will the Chancellor recognise that there is widespread public concern about the inevitable extension which is taking place and the number of children who will become involved, thus widening the whole issue? This is what we are arguing about.

Mr. Barber: Again, this must at the end of the day be a matter of judgment. I have given a good deal of thought to this matter, as have members of the Select Committee, and the majority came to the conclusion that the kind of provision which we are making in the Clause is about right. However, I agree that some people will think that other sums would be more appropriate. I believe the figures in the Clause are about right, and that was the view expressed in the Select Committee's Report.
I should like to reiterate that the principal consequence of accepting the Amendments would not in most cases make the annuitants poorer. What it would do—this is the relevant consideration for the nation—would be to cut down their share of the work which I believe


the nation appreciates. Certainly the Queen could not take on the additional burden of work which is undertaken by these individuals. I do not believe that the British people want the work of the Royal Family to be cut down. I believe that they want it to be continued and performed by the Royal Family. I agree that in the end these are matters of judgment and that the figures in the Clause represent a degree of judgment. At any rate, they represent the judgment of the majority on the Select Committee.
For these reasons, I hope that, particularly in the light of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Sowerby and in the light of the information which I have given about the taxation provision, the hon. Gentleman will not seek to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. John D. Grant: Despite what the Chancellor has said, we shall seek a Division, but only on one Amendment. I should like it to be understood that, in selecting one Amendment, we are not picking out any particular individual. We

feel that the principle applies to this whole group of Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: The Question is, That Clause 2 stand part—

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Sir Robert. When the Amendments were selected it was agreed that we could vote on any one of them. You are now proposing, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". We should like to vote on Amendment No. 10.

The Chairman: I was waiting to be informed on which Amendment a Division was required.

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) Future provision for Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret shall be nil.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 34. Noes 148.

Division No. 36.
AYES
[7.37 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Horam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
John, Brynmor
Watkins, David


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)



Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald
Mr. Arthur Davidson and Mr. Stanley Orme


Ewing, Henry
Latham, Arthur



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael





NOES


Adley, Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hawkins, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holt, Miss Mary


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Benyon, W.
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Biffen, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boscawen, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
James, David


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brewis, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jopling, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fox, Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Kinsey, J. R.


Chapman, Sydney
Gray, Hamish
Kitson, Timothy


Churchill. W. S.
Green, Alan
Knight. Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Gummer, Selwyn
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Gurden, Harold
Lane, David


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cordle, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Loveridge, John


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Luce, R. N.


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Crouch, David
Havers, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.




McLaren, Martin
Osborn, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sutcliffe, John


McMaster, Stanley
Peel, John
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maginnis, John E.
Pounder, Rafton
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maude, Angus
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Waddington, David


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rost, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Moate, Roger
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Molyneaux, James
Sharpies, Richard
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Money, Ernle
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Soref, Harold
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sproat, Iain
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morrison, Charles
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Mudd, David
Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Hn. George


Murton, Oscar
Steel, David



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neave, Airey
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. Tim Fortescue


Normanton, Tom
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.



Nott, John
Stokes, John

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Clause 5

REPORTS BY ROYAL TRUSTEES AS TO FINANCIAL PROVISION MADE BY THIS ACT

Mr. John D. Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 37, leave out "from time to time".
I shall be very brief indeed. Quite simply, this comes back to the real feeling, among some of us at any rate, that there is a totally inadequate method of control over what is, after all, a substantial item of public expenditure.
The vague phraseology of the Clause which talks about reports from time to time, the first not later than 1982, and so on, gives cause for disquiet, as does the reference to reports being made at 10-yearly intervals. We regard that as insufficient for an examination of the situation.
I return .to the sensible suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that there should be a new Department to scrutinise these matters. The Chancellor indicated that he had an open mind on this for the future, and I think that we can at least welcome that as something of a concession.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Clause generally furthers what has really

been the Government's aim throughout the exercise, and that is to sustain privilege whatever the cost, and to try to keep the whole of the Royal set-up shrouded in as much mystery and mystique as is possible in 1972. The concessions to so-called open Government as provided by the Bill are something of a mockery, and the Clause illustrates that very well indeed.

Dr. Glyn: I respect the view of the hon. Member for Islington East (Mr. John D. Grant), but take the opposite view. This matter should not come up for continual review. I have a great deal of sympathy for the very sensible suggestion made to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). All hereditary revenues should revert to the Sovereign, and that money should be used to sustain all members of the Royal Family in so far as it applies to the official duties which are carried out by them. This would entail a one-line Clause abrogating the 1952 Act and giving back the Royal revenue to the Sovereign, thereby avoiding in future these acrimonious discussions about how much she should receive
It would therefore be left to the Sovereign to decide, and the whole matter would be accountable to the Treasury. The money would be used to sustain the Monarchy and its members. These are large sums—between £5 million and £9 million a year—but a system of accounting to the Chancellor could easily have


been established covering only those amounts which could legitimately be accounted for. That is why I have the utmost sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I would have gone a stage further to ensure that the Monarchy had the funds derived from its legal entitlement, which hitherto have been surrendered voluntarily at the beginning of each reign in exchange for the Civil List.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): It is not easy but so far as one can tell the object of the Amendments is more frequent reports on the state of the Civil List. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) wants less frequent reports and no further scrutiny by Parliament at all. He mentioned the suggestion that the revenues of the Crown Estates should again revert to the Crown and be available to pay the various annuities and other expenses which at present fall on the Civil List.
I was not a member of the Select Committee but I have read the report and the evidence and I can assure my hon. Friend that a similar proposal was fully discussed. It was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It did not find favour with the Committee but it was seriously considered. For that reason, it would not be right for me to hold out any hope that this is an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
I said that it was difficult to know exactly what the Amendments are intended to do. They refer to bi-annual reports and also reports at intervals of no more than four years. I do not know which is intended but both are substantially less than the 10 years provided for in the Bill. On that account I must ask the House to resist the Amendment. I do so again with the support of the Select Committee, not only because it recommended ten years but because it considered and rejected more frequent reports.
On pages lxxv and lxxvi, a proposal for a quinquennial review and report, twice as often as was finally decided, was proposed by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) but was rejected by eight votes to one. Once again I am entitled to ask the Committee to resist

the Amendment, not only because it conflicts with the recommendations of the Select Committee but also because the Select Committee indicated by that vote that 10 years was appropriate.
I said on Second Reading that one of the novelties in the Bill is the provision for a review. Until recent decades a Civil List has been intended to last for the whole of a reign, but it has become apparent that more rapid levels of inflation make this no longer feasible. Of course, in the last resort it is a question of judgment. A later Amendment suggests a different form, but the Bill provides for a report by the Royal Trustees and its consideration by the Government and an opportunity, if the Government so decide—the Government have a discretion—to alter the sums by Statutory Instrument which would be debatable in the normal way.
This is a novel procedure, which has been fairly widely welcomed as a sensible compromise between the dangers of too frequently pulling up the system to look at the roots and the risks that the sums provided would, after 20 years, become inadequate—as in the present case—and have to be reviewed in the middle of a reign.
I hope that, having heard the arguments, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. If he does, I must ask the Committee to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

POWER BY ORDER TO INCREASE FINANCIAL PROVISION MADE BY THIS ACT

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 5, line 14, after 'may', insert:
'with the consent of the House of Commons and after full scrutiny of all the Royal finances by a Select Committee of the House'.
I can move this Amendment almost formally because the remarks I made on the preceding Amendment apply equally to this one, which is concerned very much with the question of scrutiny and control.

Mr. Barber: I can respond briefly because the Amendment is self-explanatory. It proposes the setting up of a Select Committee each time there is to be scrutiny of the Royal finances. I speak with considerable personal feeling when I say that one Select Committee on the Civil List in each reign is enough for anyone.
Without going into the matter in greater detail, I need simply add that in my view the safeguards we have are adequate without a Select Committee. First, there is the report of the Royal Trustees: second, the initiative in each case lies with the Government of the day; and third, no increase can be made against the wishes of the House of Commons.
With this explanation I hope that, having made the point, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Rossi.)

CARLISLE AND DISTRICT STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME (MR. H. QUINN)

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I make no apology for raising on the Adjournment a subject which was raised in the House in June, 1959, by the then hon. Member for Carlisle. On this occasion I raise the matter on behalf of an individual whereas in 1959 my predecessor dealt with the subject collectively. I raise the case of the dismissal of Mr. H. Quinn from the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme, and I regret that in dealing with this matter I must recall some of the history that has led up to the present state of affairs.
Mr. Quinn was a public house manager employed by the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. In August, 1958, together with five other managers, he was dismissed from the service of the scheme with the complete loss of all superannuation rights. The sole charge made against him—the same can be said of the others who were dismissed—was that he had been inefficient in that he had not returned an acceptable surplus profit from the public house of which he was the manager.
At that time Mr. Quinn had completed 27 years' service as a manager. The irony of it was that he was within one month of normal retirement at the age of 60. I estimate that so far he has lost over £3,000 in superannuation benefit and that he continues to lose at the rate of £8 a week.
It must be borne in mind that he was dismissed within one month of retiring. This has been a cruel punishment for the alleged offence of inefficiency, particularly when one recalls that Section 2(1) of the Superannuation Act, 1887, incorporated into Section 9 of the 1965 Act, expressly provides for the retirement of civil servants on grounds of inefficiency with the retention of superannuation benefit.
Had the Government of the day agreed, Mr. Quinn could have been given his superannuation benefit. The refusal of the Home Office to extend the benefit of the 1965 Act to this comparatively junior employee was not only inexplicable but inconsistent with normal practice in the Civil Service.
The decision in Mr. Quinn's case was glaringly inconsistent with the decision in another, more recent, case. I refer to the case of Mr. Adams, a former general manager of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. I regret to have to bring Mr. Adams into this and I do so only to prove my point. I wish to be fair to him. He has been co-operative throughout, both before and since his dismissal, and has willingly answered the questions I have put to him about the scheme as a whole. But in June, 1969, not long ago, he was suspended on half pay pending inquiries, which continued for about 18 months without a report being published.
At the beginning of 1971 the half salary withheld from him was restored and he was allowed to retire with full superannuation benefit. As far as I know, all that was said was that he was inefficient. Yet I can disclose to the House, rather regrettably, that there were two episodes involving him which, on any objective view, gave the Home Office cause for at least as much dissatisfaction as it purported to have in the case of Mr. Quinn, whose case I am now arguing.
The first episode concerns the manage-ship of the New Citadel Restaurant opened by the State management scheme in my constituency about three years ago. In February, 1969, whilst Mr. Adams was still the general manager, a Mr. Cohen was appointed to the managership of the New Citadel Restaurant. At the beginning of 1970 it was revealed that Mr. Cohen's appointment as manager of the restaurant had been terminated and that he had been offered reappointment at a salary of £1,000 per annum—exactly half the salary previously received.
I remember asking Questions in the House at that time about the dismissal of Mr. Cohen, the manager. I thought it was wrong that he should be told, "You can have the job if you take a £1,000 reduction in salary." I still think it was wrong to have appointed him and then, just afterwards, to say, "We have given you too much. You can have the job provided you take a £1,000 reduction."
Mr. Cohen made no secret of his resentment of this treatment at the time, and the case received wide publicity in the Press and on television, much to the embarrassment of the Home Office.

The lame explanation that Mr. Cohen was previously employed under contract does not bear examination because there is no precedent in the Civil Service for an employee on contract to be paid twice the salary that is appropriate to a permanent appointment. That the salary paid to Mr. Cohen was suspect is reinforced by the knowledge that the deputy general secretary of the Civil Service Union, which represents managers in the State management scheme, tried vainly between June and October, 1969, to obtain information about Mr. Cohen's salary. Both Mr. Adams before his suspension and the Home Office after his suspension refused to divulge this entirely unclassified information.
I have no doubt that the decision to pay Mr. Cohen £1,000 per annum above the proper salary was a monumental blunder. If the former general manager was not directly responsible for this, some other senior official was responsible. But no one has been retired on the grounds of inefficiency, let alone dismissed for a grave error of judgment which cost the Exchequer £1,000 and caused the Home Office considerable embarrassment.
The second episode involves my constituent Mr. Quinn. Since I came into the House in 1964, after meeting Mr. Quinn and discussing his case with him I have consistently raised this matter with almost every Home Secretary. I have had interviews at the Home Office. This is not a laughing matter; it is serious. My constituent is £3,000 worse off because of this blunder and the Home Office is not prepared to admit its mistake. I am convinced that Mr. Quinn has had a very raw deal and that whoever is responsible at the Home Office is not prepared to admit that he has made a very grave mistake.
In July, 1969, shortly after his suspension, the former general manager called upon Mr. Quinn at the latter's home offering information touching upon the honesty and integrity of an official of the Carlisle State Management Scheme, on the basis of which Mr. Quinn was encouraged to raise his case again. It needed no ex-general manager to force me or ask me to raise the case of Mr. Quinn. I have repeatedly raised it and until my dying day, unless something is done, I shall continue to fight on behalf of Mr. Quinn.
Subsequently Mr. Adams visited Mr. Quinn's solicitor, in company with Mr. Quinn, and repeated the allegations. I am sorry that I have to bring this out in the argument. On 22nd June, 1969, a telegram was received at the headquarters of the Civil Service Union in London. It had a Carlisle postmark and read as follows:
Strongly advise reopen Quinn case. Inspectors will testify that"—
it then gave the name of an official"
gave demonstrations.
It was signed "Insider." There is no doubt that the telegram referred to a matter that was touched upon in the Burt inquiry and that the telegram's objective was to persuade or provoke the union into raising matters that again could prove to be extremely embarrassing for the Home Office. It is to the credit of the union that it declined to be provoked on that occasion.
On 3rd August, 1969, on the very day that the former general manager was visiting Mr. Quinn, a mysterious telephone message was received at union headquarters from a lady describing herself as Mrs. Adams and asking for the last known address of Mr. Quinn. Again to the credit of the union, it refused to divulge this information. Its deputy general secretary, Mr. Moody, his suspicions now thoroughly aroused, sought and obtained a meeting with senior officials of the Home Office, to whom he revealed the contents of the telegram and telephone call, and he warned the Home Office that somebody in Carlisle was evidently bent upon stirring up trouble.
How far Mr. Adam's visit to Mr. Quinn was connected with the other two events is a matter of conjecture but it is a somewhat extraordinary coincidence that all these events should have occurred at about the same time. What cannot be doubted is that the action of this former general manager, a very senior official, who was himself under suspension pending inquiries, in approaching a former junior official in an effort to persuade him to take a course that could not do other than cause grave embarrassment to the Home Office was, to say the least, ill-judged.
Nevertheless the Home Office, in contrast to its action in the case of Mr. Quinn, has chosen deliberately to ignore

these lapses and to allow this much more senior official, from whom a much higher standard of conduct could reasonably have been expected, to retire without any loss of benefit. I am glad that the Home Office did not allow this official to lose any benefit, because if it had done so I should probably have been raising an Adjournment debate on that issue.
It may be argued in the case of Mr. Adams that the Home Office was displaying leniency and compassion towards an employee who had lapsed after a blameless period of previous service. If that is the explanation I would not hesitate to applaud it, but I find it impossible to reconcile this with the harsh and unyielding treatment which Mr. Quinn has received.
As I have said, several appeals have been made on behalf of Mr. Quinn, the most recent being by myself to Lord Windlesham, but I am sorry to say that these appeals have fallen upon deaf ears. It therefore appears that we are faced with one law for the rich and another for the poor. The general manager can have his superannuation, he can be asked to retire. My other constituent, within a month of the event, was told "You must go". This is what is called British justice.
I do not believe that the Home Office, if it is honest, as I hope the Under-Secretary will be in his reply, can square these two cases other than by reviewing its decision in the case of Mr. Quinn. This dear old gentleman, now aged 73, lives with his loyal wife—a wonderful woman—in very reduced circumstances. I ask the Home Office to allow him to spend the remaining years of his life enjoying the reasonable degree of comfort that he was entitled to expect after 27 years' loyal service, not only to the public of Carlisle but also to the Home Office.
That is the appeal that I make tonight to the Under-Secretary. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will speak from a prepared brief and that he knows little about this case. However, I make this appeal to him and to his officers who are in the official box and who know something about this case: "Show a spark of humanity. Mr. Quinn is 73. A grave injustice was done to him. He has lost £3,000. He was sacked, on the


ground of inefficiency, three months before he was due to retire. Yet you can say to others, 'Hand in your resignation. We will give you your superannuation'." As I say, it is one law for the rich and one for the poor.
Whatever the Under-Secretary says tonight, I shall certainly continue to fight this case to the best of my ability, because I will fight injustice anywhere. I believe that a grave injustice was done and is still being done to my constituent. I plead with the Under-Secretary for God's sake to give Mr. Quinn a chance to live in reasonable comfort for his few remaining years by giving him a pension.

8.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I hope that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) will not take any of the remarks I make tonight as directed against him personally. He knows that I have a great regard for him. Although I fully appreciate his sincerity in raising this case on behalf of his constituent, I am sorry that he has felt it necessary to raise the matter in the House tonight after his recent interview with my noble Friend Lord Windlesham at the Home Office.
This matter has a long history. Mr. Quinn was dismissed as long ago as 1958. The case was fully ventilated in the House on 30th June, 1959, when the then Member for Carlisle—Dr. Johnson —raised it on an Adjournment debate. Since that date, the hon. Gentleman, with considerable pertinacity, has written to successive Home Secretaries. He has had replies from or meetings with five separate and successive Ministers at the Home Office, all of whom, I have no doubt, although I cannot speak for Ministers in the previous Administration, fully and carefully reviewed on many occasions the representations which the hon. Member made. It appears that not one of those Ministers, on reviewing the case, has felt it right to differ from the decision that Lord Butler, then Home Secretary, took in 1958.
Within the past few weeks the hon. Gentleman has had an interview with my noble Friend, Lord Windlesham, the junior Minister directly responsible, who has also reviewed the case and has come

to the opinion that there is no evidence that would justify differing from the decision taken in 1958. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would consider the decision myself. I am sure that he will accept from me that for the purposes of answering this debate I, too, have been through the file and the reports, and, although it is not my direct responsibility within the Home Office, I find myself wholly in agreement with the views expressed by my noble Friend and the decisions apparently reached by previous Ministers. Therefore, although I respect the hon. Gentleman's pertinacity, little good can probably be achieved at this stage by raising the case yet further.
Mr. Quinn was a public house manager of the Cumberland Hotel in the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. As such, he was a civil servant. Therefore, when the proceedings in question took place he was dealt with under the established disciplinary procedure for the Civil Service. This long-standing procedure has been agreed with, and is fully accepted and supported by, the staff side, which includes representatives of the Civil Service Union, which has very properly represented Mr. Quinn from time to time.
For the benefit of hon. Members, perhaps I should outline the procedure open to the civil servant when a disciplinary charge is brought against him. He is first given a written statement defining the charge and setting out the particulars of the case relied on to support it. He must submit a written reply to the charge, but when there is a conflict between the two he may then put his case orally before a senior officer in his own department, other than his immediate superior. For that purpose he may have the assistance of a friend or colleague, who can be a representative of his union. Therefore, a decision to dismiss a civil servant is not made unfairly or hastily or without due consideration of the point of view of the officer concerned, including any claim he may make to extenuating circumstances.
All of that elaborate procedure was followed in the case of Mr. Quinn, who was one of six public house managers in the State Management Scheme who were dismissed as a result of disciplinary charges that, following repeated warnings of unsatisfactory trading results, they had


failed by a substantial amount and over a considerable period to produce for payment into Exchequer funds the money that could reasonably have been expected from the sale of liquor at the public house it was their responsibility to manage. Two other managers were reprimanded and downgraded.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Mr. Quinn had had a long period of service with the Carlisle State Management Scheme. The action against him was based on returns over the previous 15 months, but in addition he had been continuously warned ever since January, 1953 —a period of five years—about the cash coming in from that public house.
The proper disciplinary procedure was scrupulously observed in the case of Mr. Quinn. Indeed, it went further, because in the case of the managers who were dismissed it was decided to appoint a special disciplinary board consisting of three members, two of whom, including the Chairman, had no connection with the Home Office. The Chairman was Sir John Simpson, then head of the Stationery Office. The appointment of that special board was well in accord with the well-guarded traditions of the Home Office for ensuring impartial treatment of any individual.
Before that disciplinary board Mr. Quinn had the advice and assistance of two headquarters officers from the Civil Service Union, who were there to help him and the other managers to present their cases to the board.
The board not only heard the manager's explanation but allowed the union representatives full scope for dealing with various more general points which they wished to advance, such as the control, the arrangements and whether there was adequate staff supervision. I am bound to point out that at the conclusion of the disciplinary board proceedings the union officials on behalf of Mr. Quinn and the other men went out of their way to thank the board for the very fair hearing they believed to have been given to these men.
The board sat for three days in Carlisle hearing evidence and had three further meetings to consider its findings and make recomendations to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Ron Lewis: In public or in camera?

Mr. Carlisle: I presume that the board, being a disciplinary board, would sit in camera, but with the man represented by members of his union. In the light of the board's findings the decision to dismiss Mr. Quinn was taken personally by the then Secretary of State, Lord Butler. It was taken in the light of the board's findings and its report. Mr. Quinn appealed as the Home Secretary gave him the opportunity to do, but after consideration of any further evidence that he wished to advance, the Home Secretary concluded that there were no grounds for varying the decision he had reached. Dismissal was the appropriate penalty in view of the serious nature of the charge and the loss to public funds that had been occasioned.
The hon. Member spoke about a kind heart, but the position is that, since Mr. Quinn was dismissed for disciplinary reasons, under the terms of the Superannuation Act there is no provision for the grant of a pension. There is no authority under which a pension may be granted. The loss of his pension was the direct and unavoidable consequence of his dismissal by the head of the Department, the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman tries to draw a contrast between that case and the case of Mr. Adams, but I would remind him that while there was a period of time when Mr. Adams was suspended pending investigations there was no action taken as a result of those investigations and Mr. Adams was retired on medical grounds and was not dismissed for a disciplinary offence.

Mr. Ron Lewis: According to newspaper reports, Mr. Adams was asked by the Home Office to retire on medical grounds. He is quoted in a newspaper interview as saying:
There is nothing wrong with me, I am in good health and strength.
Who am Ito believe?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not think it right to go into the details of another case, but the position is that Mr. Adams was suspended pending investigations but no action was taken as a result of these investigations. He retired on medical grounds—

Mr. Ron Lewis: At the suggestion of the Home Office.

Mr. Carlisle: Since he was retired on medical grounds he qualifies for a pension whereas—and I must get across to the hon. Gentleman—the simple fact is that if a person is dismissed as the result of a disciplinary offence there is no authority under the statute by which any pension can be paid. It is not a question of a discretionary grant. There is no authority. If he had not been dismissed but retired on what is known as an inefficiency basis then he would be eligible for consideration for a superannuation award.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Mr. Quinn is.

Mr. Carlisle: With respect he is not. The whole contention hinges on the definition of the word "inefficiency", Mr. Quinn was not retired prematurely on the basis that it was felt that the job was beyond him. He was dismissed following a disciplinary charge.
The charge—and I was careful to use the wording of it—which was brought against him was one of culpable inefficiency. He had the ability and capacity to do the work properly, but had not done it. That was the basis on which the Home Secretary made his decision to dismiss him. The question of retirement did not arise, and it was a question of dismissal. There is therefore no power to grant him a pension.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): The House is very interested in this matter. The Under-Secretary of State has given a fairly lucid explanation, but we are not aware whether it was a case of inefficiency or dishonesty. If there was no proof of dishonesty, and if there was no case on which a prosecution could he based, why was not this gentleman dealt with on the ground of inefficiency?

Mr. Carlisle: I did not propose to go into this matter but I will do so. At that time various managers of public houses were prosecuted for offences involving dishonesty—

Mr. Ron Lewis: Not this one.

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. Eight managers, including Mr. Quinn, were brought before a disciplinary board. No

prosecution was brought against Mr. Quinn. I was careful to read the wording of what was said to be the disciplinary charge, namely, that following repeated warnings of unsatisfactory trading returns the managers had failed by a substantial amount and over a considerable period to produce for payment into Exchequer funds the money which could have reasonably been expected from the sale of liquor at their public houses. The allegation which was proved was one of culpable inefficiency in that, being the manager of the public house, over a substantial period the money being produced for payment into the Exchequer funds was not that which could reasonably have been expected from the sale of the liquor at that public house.
I repeat that this was not an action suddenly taken in 1958. Mr. Quinn had been repeatedly warned, on the state of returns since 1953, that this was the position. I appreciate that Mr. Quinn is now 73 and I have, as anybody must have, sympathy with a man who finds himself at that age without a pension. However, I am bound to say that that follows automatically from the decision to dismiss him. Having studied the papers, I must say that I am in agreement with the view formed by my predecessors—the five or six Ministers the hon. Gentleman has seen about this case—who consistently assured themselves that the decision taken in 1958 by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, as he then was, to dismiss Mr. Quinn was fairly and properly taken. In the absence of any new evidence—and. despite the hon. Gentleman's plea, he has not been able to produce any new evidence—I am unable to recommend that the Home Secretary should vary the decision.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the argument which I have used in the case of the former general manager, namely, why there should be one law in that case and another law in this case? He has not answered that argument.

Mr. Carlisle: I did answer it; it was the centre of my answer.

Mr. Ron Lewis: No.

Mr. Carlisle: Mr. Quinn was dismissed in 1958. Mr. Adams was not dismissed; he was retired on medical grounds.

Mr. Ron Lewis: He has denied it. He has told the newspapers that he is in good health, so somebody is wrong. I shall not let this matter drop.

PRISONS

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I rise to raise a subject of which I have given the Chair notice and notice of which I have also given to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, and that is the state of prisons in England and Wales. A great deal of attention has been given in the Press to the state of penal policy in this country and the state of the prisons in England and Wales, and by way of illustration one has only to refer to the articles which have just appeared in The Times newspaper and which have surveyed the present state of prisons. There is concern, and I know that this concern is very much shared by my and hon. and learned Friend who, if I may say so, has made a quite outstanding contribution already towards improving matters.
The major cause for concern has been the ever-increasing number who seem to be finding their way to prison. The prison population has increased from 15,000 just after the last world war to just under 40,000 at the present time. This in itself reflects a very real rise in crime. Some people still seem to believe that the increase in crime is something of an illusion, but all the detailed evidence suggests that the increase is very real indeed. The research which has been done on this question by organisations like the Cambridge Institute of Criminology suggests that not only has there been an increase in crime but an increase in those crimes which the public consider most serious.
Therefore, more and more one is seeing an increase in professional crime in this country. One is seeing more people of the young professional criminal class going to prison—the young person in his twenties who lives by crime and, at that stage in his development, does not want to pursue any other kind of occupation. This danger from the young professional criminal is one of the very real problems which this Government have to face. I know it is a problem of which my hon. and learned Friend is well aware.
To give but one example of this. There has been an increase in the crime of robbery in this country. Twenty years ago robbery, with its implication of violence with theft, was a crime which was relatively rare even in London. Today it is a major threat. It has a turnover and proceeds of over £2 million, and concerns a great number of professional and semi-professional criminals.
We in this House would be extremely silly to ignore the very real public concern there is about this question. We would be very stupid to ignore the concern in particular that there is about the increase in armed crime, about the increase in the carrying of arms by professional criminals.
My hon. and learned Friend has had only very short notice of this debate: I am extremely grateful for the courteous way in which he agreed that we should have it and is listening to it. I should like to draw his attention to a proposal which was recently made by the Society of Conservative Lawyers, of which he himself was once a part. It said that the abolition of the death penalty left a very dangerous vacuum which life imprisonment has simply failed to fill. This is a very, very real point, one which causes very grave public concern.
Life imprisonment is not what it seems; it is a false name, and it is regarded as an empty threat. I shall not discuss what the average life sentence happens to be. I do not think that arguments about averages of that kind are meaningful. But what is clear is that it seems to the professional criminal, especially the young professional criminal, that the sentence of life imprisonment is an empty threat. He believes—rightly or wrongly; it matters not—that he will be out of prison within a relatively short time, perhaps only eight or nine years.
What is most curious in the present state of the law is that the sentence for manslaughter, for example, can be varied at the discretion of the court, but a murderer can be given only life imprisonment. Discretion is, therefore, taken away from the court which has heard the facts of the case. To put it in another way, it was possible for the court which tried those responsible for the Great Train Robbery to give plainly deterrent sentences of 25 or 30 years. That is not possible in the


case of murder. The only possible sentence is life imprisonment.
What has been proposed, therefore—I urge it upon my hon. and learned Friend for his consideration—is that it should be possible in murder cases for the courts to impose fixed sentences of imprisonment on that sort of scale, 25 or 30 years, where appropriate. The advantage of that course would be that it would become clear to professional criminals that the carrying of arms was simply not worth while.
There is no unanimity about how to deal with the professional criminal, the really serious offender, who goes into the penal system. One school of thought says that such prisoners should be held in a separate prison. This was the idea put forward by Lord Mountbatten in his report on the prison system. He proposed that a separate prison should be established on the Isle of Wight and that all our most dangerous prisoners should be put there.
It has always seemed to me that the risk of that course is that we should create an ungovernable prison. We should put together in one place all the men who are, by definition, the most dangerous in our penal system, and we should impose a mammoth task of discipline and organisation upon the prison staff and the governor.
We must face this problem squarely. There are inside our prisons dangerous or potentially dangerous men who create great difficulties for the prison staff. Our prison staff have a difficult enough job as it is, without our creating a prison of that kind liable to be dangerous not only to society but also to the staff whose job it would be to govern it.
I am convinced. therefore, as I am sure my hon. and learned Friend is, that it is right to disperse prisoners of this kind in secure prisons, in other words, separating the dangerous hard core of prisoners and putting them in five or six different prisons throughout the country, mixing them with the slightly less dangerous or, in some cases, category B prisoners. This method has advantages in organisation. It has the further advantage that it does not confer the status of a "special" prison.
It is right to disperse such prisoners only so long as the prisons are secure. One of the most noticeable things in the last few years and during my hon. and learned Friend's time at the Home Office is how much more secure are the prisons, and how much more secure they appear even to the casual observer. There is little that brings the prison system more into contempt than prisoners apparently being able to get out of prison at will, as happened in the mid-1960s. We have managed to reduce radically the/number of escapes, and this is very much to the credit of the prison service and the prison system.
We have to remember that there are men who need top security, and those are the men who should be dispersed. In formulating this policy our first priority must always be the security of the public, and that is why I mention in passing the suggestion of the Society of Conservative Lawyers and myself of amendment of the life sentence.
At the moment there are undoubtedly men in prison who should not be there. That is not to say that they should not be held under supervision, but they should not be held inside prison, because prison is not relevant to their offences. In Pentonville there are men with serious drink problems, alcoholics and those verging on alcoholism. Throughout their lives they commit a series of minor offences. They may be sentenced to one or two weeks' imprisonment, or sometimes the sentence may run into months. After this, they are discharged, they go to the Salvation Army hostel, they sleep rough, commit another minor offence and the circle starts all over again. All that prison has achieved for them is to dry them out and provide them with decent cover and decent food. It can do nothing to solve their long-term needs, because prison is not the place where they can be treated.
There are similar groups who are simply not relevant to the kind of treatment and ré that prison provides. We must not merely recognise these groups and allow them a freedom which is completely unfettered and unsupervised. Our aim must be to work towards the idea of supervised liberty outside prison with progress supervised by the only service which can do this work, the probation service.
My hon. and learned Friend knows the concern of this side of the House for the probation service and he will recognise that the members of the service, if we move towards a policy of supervised liberty, are the only men who can carry out this supervision. But the probation service is already vastly overworked, the officers have to carry out an enormous number of jobs and to work long hours.
I appreciate that the Government have recognised this fact and are putting into effect plans for an expanded service, which I very much welcome. The plan to increase the numbers from 3,500 to 4,700 in 1975 is very much in the right direction and is generally welcome and is very much a tribute to my hon. and learned Friend. Does he realise that a provisional report of a work study carried out by the National Association of Probation Officers indicates that for the Probation Service to carry out its present duties its strength at this present stage should be 4,700? The survey suggests that the increase planned by the Government will put the service in three years' time only in a position to carry out the duties which it already has. In other words, the evidence seems to suggest that at this moment the Probation Service is seriously understaffed and indeed is probably 25 per cent. undermanned. This does not mean that the Probation Service will break down or that probation officers will desert the service or take on new jobs. What it can mean is that probation officers will not have the time to carry out their duties as effectively as they would like.
My belief is that even today the probation service is underrated, and that its contribution is not adequately recognised. For many years probation officers have been the forgotten men and women in the battle against crime. We rightly hear a great deal about the shortage of police officers, but it should also be realised that the shortage of probation officers strikes at the heart of our policies against crime.
I conclude by saying that many of us who have taken an interest in penal policy have been extremely impressed with the way in which my hon. and learned Friend has handled these policies. We are grateful for the way in which he listens to our suggestions, and I hope that he will find some merit in my suggestions.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I have sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State in having to attend this debate with very little warning indeed, but there are certain points about the present penal system on which I wish to comment briefly.
First, I think we are suffering an unnecessary over-population in our prisons due to the operation of the suspended sentence mechanism. I urge my hon. and learned Friend when he can to introduce legislation to alter this situation. As he well knows, many young men are given a suspended sentence and do not know what it means. They go away and commit another crime and immediately go to prison, not only for the initial six months or whatever is the period, but for a very much longer period. I believe that magistrates should know what is happening and that the Government should take steps to make the matter clear.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) about the excellence of the probation service. I remind the Minister that the sort of person who is drawn to the probation service from a wide stratum of society is probably the most overworked and overstretched of all our workers in this sector. There are simply not enough bodies to go round. This is partly due to increasing leisure hours and the shorter working week and the fact that the sort of devoted people whom we have come to expect in this service just do not exist but have been swallowed up in other equally praise-worthy activities. To seek to expand the probation service much beyond the Government's present intentions would be to reduce its quality. We must realise this and live in a world of reality.
I turn next to the question of work in prisons. Again, I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his great courtesy in seeing me on a number of occasions about this matter. As hon. Members know, I represent the prison officers who staff the great prison at Maidstone, and I am acutely aware of my hon. and learned Friend's excellent work concerning the training of prisoners. But one must have reservations about certain lines of work pursued in some of our prisons which may be truly to the detriment of the economy and which are not neces-


sarily proper courses of action. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will continue to keep under close surveillance any extension of prison work into new industries.
Having said that, I go on to say that I am an advocate of longer hours of work. One of the weaknesses of trying to run a prison in a democracy is that it is extremely difficult to make prisoners tired. One has to provide swimming baths, football fields and all sorts of absurd amenities to tire their bodies. Whereas it is possible to run an admirable prison in a totalitarian State, whether it be Spain or a Communist country, where the hours of work are very much longer, that is not possible, in a democracy. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to do all he can to extend the existing prison industries to longer hours rather than seek to introduce new industries. The trade union movement was extremely unhelpful about this at one time. However, in recent years, largely due to the activities of certain hon. Members opposite, there has been a great improvement in the attitude of the trade unions to prison work. I hope that the improvement will continue.
Finally, again I contrast the difficulty of running a prison in a democracy and one in a totalitarian State. Whether one approves of it or not, in a totalitarian State a degree of ideas is stuffed down the throats of prisoners. In Communist countries they are indoctrinated with the views of the State. In certain southern Roman Catholic totalitarian countries they are force-fed with the beliefs of Rome. I make no comment on that but I believe that one of our grave problems in this permissive democracy, where there seem to be few ideals in the outside world, is that prison welfare officers, prison chaplains and prison governors have an uphill task in providing any ideals for men who have none. I realise the practical difficulties and, without wishing to be starry-eyed about this, I urge strongly upon my hon. and learned Friend the need to try to provide some national or religious idealism, or both, in those unfortunate people who have been sent to prison.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I intervene briefly to ask the Under-Secretary

what has happened to a case that I referred to his right hon. Friend concerning the number of probation officers in the St. Helens and Merseyside area. I was told that if I gave the Minister details of the case he would look into it personally. That was several months ago, and I have received no reply giving any real details.
I want to underline what has been said about the importance of having a full-strength probation service. As one who sits in courts in the North Fylde area, I have found the help of probation officers invaluable. It would be difficult to deal with the cases of many young persons without reports from probation officers.
In the St. Helens and Merseyside area I understand, on the very good authority of the Chief Probation Officer, that a number of probation officers have left the service to take other types of employment rather than remain in the employ of the Home Office on the pay that they were receiving prior to the last increase.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) referred to suspended sentences. There is nothing wrong with the suspended sentence. Very often one can avoid sending a person to prison because of that form of sentence. That is most important. It is the fault of the court if it allows a defendant to leave the court with a suspended sentence witthout knowing the real meaning of it. If that situation is as widespread as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe, I ask the Under-Secretary to draw to the attention of the courts the need to explain the meaning of a suspended sentence to a defendant before he steps down.

9.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that this has been a somewhat wide-ranging debate and various
points—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must ask the leave of the House to reply.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
This has been a somewhat wide-ranging debate. Various individual questions have been asked. I am sure that hon. Members who have spoken will appreciate that, without any means of being advised about the answers and without notice that these matters were to be raised, although I will do my best to answer them I may appear to be somewhat vague about some of the figures which I shall give.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) referred specifically to overcrowding in prisons due to the high degree of criminality which exists in society. I do not think that anyone could view with other than alarm the degree of overcrowding in our prisons. There are about 40,000 people in our prisons. About 14,000 are kept in difficult conditions: two or three in a cell originally built—probably in the Victorian era—for one person. Happily, the number of those in prison has remained constant since about May, 1970. However, the problem of overcrowding is serious and has to be tackled.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who attempted to draw a distinction between violent and the non-violent criminals, that we might try to deal with non-violent offenders by other means than imprisonment.
The Government, faced with the present situation of overcrowding in prisons, decided that the problem required a two-pronged approach: on the one hand to build further prison accommodation, and on the other hand to consider the possibility of making available to the courts alternative penalties to custodial sentences for those whom it is not necessary in society's interest to send to prison.
As regards the prison-building programme, we now have planning clearance for 14 major new schemes which will provide 10,000 additional prison places. In the current financial year we hope to start on schemes providing 2,500 new places. In the financial year 1970–71 we started on schemes providing 1,500 new places. In the financial year 1969–70 a start was made on one new scheme involving 80 places. In two years we have managed to get from a situation of 80 new places in 1969–70 to the starting of 2,500 places this year, and a further

substantial building programme will grow up over the coming years with the aim of providing 9,000 additional places in prison by 1975. There is planning clearance for 10,000 places, compared with about five schemes for which we had planning clearance when we took office in June, 1970.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to life sentences and asked whether the Government had considered relating life sentences to a determinate sentence for murder. I should like to say one or two general things about that. There is among the public at large, and indeed among hon. Members, a misunderstanding of the full effect of the life sentence. I emphasise as strongly as I can that the mandatory life sentence for murder is what it means. It is imprisonment for life, an indeterminate sentence, releasable only on licence and only on the licence of the Home Secretary. Anyone convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment is in prison for an indeterminate time. He can be released on licence only by the Home Secretary and he remains subject to recall during the period of that licence.
It is a fallacy to suggest, as some people do, that there is any definite average period of a life sentence. Each case is considered individually. There is no such thing as an average sentence. Before the Home Secretary can release anybody serving a life sentence having been convicted of murder, he must first consult the Lord Chief Justice, who in turn must consult the trial judge, and my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary has made it abundantly clear that he will consider very carefully and take great account of the advice given by the Lord Chief Justice. The Home Secretary must also receive a recommendation for release from the parole board, which includes members of the judiciary, before he can release anyone on licence.
Whilst it is true—and I am sure the House would agree with this—that one would not wish to see everybody convicted of murder necessarily spending the rest of his life in prison, it would be wrong to assume that there are not among the prison population men who may have to spend very long periods in prison and, indeed, some of whom it is not known when it will be possible to release them.


The Home Secretary's overwhelming consideration in deciding whether to release someone serving a life sentence is that of the security of society as a whole.
I put that first because the answer to my hon. Friend's comment about the determinate sentence is that at the end of a determinate sentence a man must be released and cannot be recalled. With a life sentence, the moment for release can be dictated by the advice the Home Secretary receives as to the safety of releasing the individual.
The whole question of what is the appropriate sentence for murder, subject to the decision of the House of Commons on capital punishment, is before the Criminal Law Revision Committee and its report should be received within the next 12 months or so.
My hon. Friend asked whether the present Government supported the recommendations of the Mountbatten Report on the detention of dangerous criminals. The Government have followed the decision of the previous Administration to accept the recommendation for a policy of dispersal proposed by the advisory council rather than the Mountbatten proposal for one prison. My hon. Friend drew attention to the grave dangers of putting all these men in one prison. We now have five or six maximum security dispersal prisons and during the past year we have managed to close one of the special wings, which leaves three wings and five or six dispersal prisons.
I appreciate the importance of the probation service and we have announced its expansion to 4,700 by the end of 1975. Also, last October, we opened an additional 100 training places and we hope that a further 100 can be opened during this year; therefore, by the end of the year there will be 550 as against 350 two years ago.
The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) asked a specific question. I am sorry that he has not had a reply from the Home Office. I cannot give the figures for the probation service in his area but the figure for the service as a whole at the end of last year was 200 or 300 higher than a year before. Recruitment is going very well and training places are being taken up.
I do not believe that there has been any diminution in the standards of people entering the service, since we still have many more applications for training than are accepted. On the other hand, I think that I speak for everyone when I say that we want to see a well-trained and expanding service. We want no diminution of quality but we want an expansion of numbers. The probation service is the care of many of the alternative methods of penalty other than prison.

Mr. Spriggs: An important point which the Minister has missed is the loss of fully-trained probation officers. What incentive do the Government propose to retain fully-trained personnel?

Mr. Carlisle: There was a great deal of worry about the loss of trained personnel to the local authorities' social welfare departments but the figures were exaggerated. Surprisingly the figures for last year, whatever was said, were only slightly up on the figures for the previous year.
The answer is twofold. We are aware of this. The fact that this pressure was removed resulted from the review of salaries in the probation service last year which allowed for an increase of over 14 per cent. in salaries, coupled with the review which is now taking place under Professor Butterworth, of Warwick University, into the relationship between the salaries of probation officers and those of local authority welfare workers. This is a vital point and we have the support of the National Association of Probation Officers in the review which the Home Secretary has set up.
Reference has been made to the whole question of suspended sentences. It is a pity that neither hon. Member who raised this subject is a member of the Standing Committee which is examining the Criminal Justice Bill, because we had the pleasure yesterday of listening to a speech of one hour and 10 minutes from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) about the whole question of suspended sentences. This issue is being now reviewed in Committee.
I agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens that the suspended sentence has a place. However, there is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) said, that the figures show that more such sentences are


being given and that the number of people being placed on probation and fined is accordingly diminishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked me to bear in mind the importance of giving work to prisoners. This is one of those real problems which involves the Home Office having to walk a tightrope between the desire of society that those in prison should be given gainful employment and the need to ensure that they are not in unfair competition with people outside.
I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of care is taken when considering matters of this kind. We have a duty to see that the size of the market which the prison departments attempt to gain is reasonable and that the products of prison industry do not compete unfairly with the products of industry outside. Within those confines, I am glad to report that the prison industries are today, I believe for the first time ever, making a profit.
My hon. Friend next asked me to say that we desire to inculcate into the individual a spirit of religious understanding where none existed at the time of that individual's entry into prison. This is, I suggest with respect, a pious hope. If we could change the basic nature of those who are criminally minded, less crime would be committed, there would be a reduction in the prison population and we would find a great amelioration of the problems we face.

SCOTLAND (UNEMPLOYMENT)

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to raise the problems of Scottish unemployment. I am particularly glad to see the Lord President in the Chamber because he will admit that I am a believer in parliamentary manners. I do not believe in Ministers being given just a few minutes' notice of a debate and then being expected to be in their place to answer it.
Hon. Members may be wondering why there is not a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench. As soon as the main debate collapsed I expressed to the P.P.S. at the Department the hope that a Scottish Minister would be present to answer this debate. I then sent mes-

sages to three of the five Scottish Ministers.
Although, perhaps understandably, the Secretary of State cannot be here because he is busy on a major and official engagement, it strikes me that there are such things as duty Ministers. When a Department has not one or two, but five Ministers in the Commons, the House is surely entitled to hope that one of them will be present.
I do not apologise for raising this subject because the need to observe parliamentary manners can be carried only so far. One must remember when talking about the unemployment situation that now faces us in Scotland, with the prospect tomorrow of the announcement of a United Kingdom figure of 1 million unemployed, that there are a great many people in the nation who think that the substance of this issue is rather more important than the decorum and manners of Parliament. Most of us abide by those manners, but if my hon. Friends can be here, so at least could one Government Minister out of five.

Mr. John Wells: I apologise for not being a Scottish Member, but my mother is Scots and lives in Scotland, and I know a little about the northern part of the kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman was seeking to be eminently fair. He has said that the Secretary of State has an important engagement elsewhere. Being a fair man, the hon. Gentleman will accept that my noble Friend the Lady Tweedsmuir could not come here to answer his debate.

Mr. Alex Eadie: My hon. Friend has merely given way.

Mr. Wells: I am seeking to make my point, if the hon. Member would be quiet.
There are five Ministers in the Scottish Department. Two of them are hard working, on duty and unable to be present, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. It is not unreasonable that the other three should not be here. The hon. Gentleman also said that he gave notice. At what time did he give notice that he would raise this matter?

Mr. Dalyell: In the North there are 140,000 unemployed. Really, that is not an excuse but a reason for having


such a debate. A fortnight ago I wrote to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) specifically saying that I hoped, if the House were to collapse at an early date, to return to a subject I raised with him during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 15th and 16th December. It is this matter I hope to raise, because I have a fairly clear idea of one constructive way of combating the unemployment problem.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Now that we have the privilege of the presence of the Lord President, would it be possible for my hon. Friend to suggest that the Lord President might explain why the duty Scottish Minister is not here.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Perhaps I can help the House. I understand that the hon. Member who wishes to raise a matter on the Adjournment—this is normal and I do not complain about this—should give the specific notice on the particular night when it happens. However, I realise that this has not happened tonight. I do not complain about it. I do not think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in giving a sort of general view that if the House were to come to the adjournment early on some night in the next month or so and saying that he would then wish to raise the matter, is in fact giving notice for the night. I do not complain at that. But, on the other hand, this is a very important matter. No one appreciates that more than I.
I heard of this matter. I have come here myself and I am prepared to listen to the debate. I have done my best to find a Scottish Minister to come to the debate. If one does not come, I shall remain myself. I shall listen to the debate. I do not think the House would expect me to reply in detail to the debate but, on the other hand, in general terms I would certainly be prepared to make some off-the-cuff comments, which would probably be limited in their type. But nevertheless, I would do so, because I recognise that this is a very important matter. On hearing of this I came here because I recognised that. That is an earnest of my intention.
I am prepared to listen to the debate and hear the views expressed and say, as is my duty and task as a Cabinet Minister, that I will see that they are brought closely to the attention of the Secretary of State. If one of the junior Ministers can be produced, I am sure that the House would understand if I leave the rest of the debate to him; but if he is not, I will be here for the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: I count myself peculiarly fortunate. The truth is that I would much rather direct my speech to the Lord President, having absolutely no doubt as to how important a member of the Cabinet he is, as Chairman of the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet. There is no one to whom I would rather make my speech.
On 16th December I raised in detail, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, a scheme that had come out of a conference that was organised by the Scottish National Trust and its director, Mr. James Stormonth Darling, at which the Civic Trusts were represented and at which they put forward, coherently and in detail, a plan for urban conservation of large towns and cities and small towns.
If I were to be asked what effect this has on employment, I should reply that this is something which could affect short-term employment prospects, because money that is put into the renovation of cities is extremely labour-intensive-using public money. I argue in favour of this scheme that it is perhaps the best value, from the point of view of creating employment, per pound of public money spent.
The proposition is that the Government should set aside some millions of pounds quickly, to make it possible for Scottish local authorities to renovate, not only cities, but small towns, and, indeed, to preserve many buildings which would otherwise deteriorate. I think that the Lord President knows the Gorbals area of Glasgow and the centre of Glasgow. One of the striking things about Glasgow—it is true also of Edinburgh, Bo'ness and many other towns—is that many of the buildings which have been condemned as slums were beautiful buildings only 20 years ago. I am not saying that Glasgow Corporation was wrong to schedule certain buildings for demolition. The point


of my argument is, as many of my hon. Friends know, that there are many buildings in Scottish cities and towns which, if something is not done to them quickly, will get into the same state which has led to the demolition of buildings in the Gorbals, in Govan Hill and in other areas of Glasgow. Therefore, there is a very powerful argument for a renovation scheme such as was proposed by the Scottish National Trust and the Scottish Civic Trust.
The immediate issue which arises is whether it is practicable. The Under-Secretary of State for Development said that as much money was available as was needed and that he saw the problem in terms of management. I quote from what the hon. Gentleman said in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill:
I thank the hon. Member for West Lothian for his interesting and carefully thought out suggestions. This is not the first time that we can congratulate him for raising a matter in such a manner. The way in which he has done so is tremendously helpful. I will look most carefully at all his detailed suggestions to see how far we can go along the road that he has suggested, and to see what possibilities there are. All his constructive suggestions merit close attention, and I will give them close attention in the days immediately ahead.
I also agree with the hon. Member's general proposition that there is now a major need for more concentration than at any time, in the recent past anyway, on conservation of some of the better old buildings in our towns and cities. I agree that our emphasis on this, for many good reasons, has not been all it should be and that the time is now ripe, apart from all other considerations, for much greater attention and more resources to be devoted to trying to conserve what we have.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 807.]
That was the rough flavour and tenor of the Under-Secretary's speech. In the unemployment situation in the North, it is not months that should be taken to decide such things. We are now talking in terms of weeks, because the unemployment situation is getting out of hand. If the money is available, it becomes a matter of the Government's will. That is why I am so glad that I have the good fortune that the Lord President is standing in tonight, because I know perfectly well that the Under-Secretary of State, whose intentions I believe to be good in this matter, has not the power to implement by himself the kind of detailed proposals that I made in the debate on the

Consolidated Fund Bill. For the hon. Member for Ayr, the Lord President, would be a valuable ally indeed in Whitehall.
We are very fortunate tonight in having with us the second most powerful man in the British Government. I have a suspicion that if the Lord President gave his mind to the matter and told the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland, "Here is a practical scheme worked out by nonpolitical people in some detail. They know what they are about really is a socially useful scheme and has the advantage that it would provide many jobs quickly", that might have considerable effect.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the present situation is that it is not good enough simply to pump in millions of pounds of Government money. If £20 million is spent on bringing forward motorways, that will not create many jobs. But the kind of urban conservation programme put forward by the National Trust and the Civic Trust, and spoken about in detail in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, can at least give hope to many thousands without a job including—and this is the realistic part—many thousands in the building industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) will catch the eye of the Chair. He knows better than I that many of the skilled building workers in his union are precisely those who have not got work. I am glad also that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and others who have taken an interest in the shipbuilding industry are here. John Gerrard of the Civic Trust has said that the skills associated with ship repairing are easily transferable to the kind of urban renewal I have in mind. It goes without saying that the Scottish Trades Union Congress is very sympathetic, and any union difficulties would vanish overnight if a thought-out scheme were accepted and financed by the Government, to be carried out through the local authorities and with their help.
These are practical proposals put forward in no partisan spirit. The Lord President is a sensitive man, and if he casts his mind back to the time when he


was a candidate in the West of Scotland he will appreciate what the unemployment statistics actually mean in human terms. The time has come for him to use his very great influence in the Government to implement the kind of scheme I have put forward on behalf of the National Trust and the Civic Trust.

9.43 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I hope that my hon. Friends will sustain the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I rise now to invite the Lord President, defending the fortress by himself, to say something before the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland arrives. He may not arrive at all, in which case I should not like the Lord President to be embarrassed by having to answer specific questions raised by my hon. Friends. When I sit down he might be kind enough to say a few words. I am asking him not for factual answers but simply to make some essential points to back up my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. [Interruption.] I am merely stating some of the things we should like the Lord President to answer. My hon. Friend pointed out that we are lucky enough to have with us the second most important Minister in the Government taking an Adjournment debate. That is most unusual; I have never seen it in my parliamentary life, which has now lasted more than 16 years. We should embrace the Lord President with all the affection at our command in the hope that he will answer the points raised.
Tomorrow we shall be told of the worst unemployment figures since the Second World War. My hon. Friend has said that certain Government measures to deal with unemployment are not working. For example, the house improvement grants have not taken up the excess of labour in the repairing and building trades as we should like. We hope for a progress report on that. The scheme began in the emergency Act the Government rushed through last summer and was to end by the summer of 1973. Therefore, we hoped that we should see the pick-up taking place during this winter and enlarging itself until next winter, when it should reach its peak.
We should like the Lord President at least to agree to examine the figures in

relation not only to Scotland but to other parts of the United Kingdom and to see whether all those who are supposed to be engaged in construction or repair work are so engaged. The same point can be made in respect of the other matter raised by my hon. Friend about road construction, hospital expansion and schools. We know that the take-up is not as great as it should be—in other words, the Government's policy is not functioning as well as it ought. We ask tonight that the Lord President should tell us that he is not complacent about the situation, that he realises the policy is not working to the Government's expectations and that he wants to see it improving.
I do not believe, and I am sure that he does not, that the present measures even if fully operative would be enough. The figures to be given tomorrow will be shattering, really calamitous for the Government and it will take a long time for the Government to live them down. Let us not concern ourselves with that for the moment, let us concern ourselves with the simple proposition: how do we get these figures down more rapidly? That is in the interests of everyone, especially the unemployed.
Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell us, not only that progress will be accelerated but that the Government are now willing to review regional policy and, for example, to look at the question of the denial to native industry of incentives equivalent to those given to incoming industries in special development areas? This is a fundamental defect in the Government's regional policy, as is the decision to move from investment grants to investment allowances. There are not unfair propositions to put to the right hon. Gentleman without notice and I hope that he will respond to my invitation to speak so that my hon. Friends can at least add to whatever omissions he may make in his short address.

9.47 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I think it would be right for me to respond to the generous remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). It is obviously a most dangerous exercise for an hon.


Member from outside Scotland, even a Minister of Cabinet rank, to seek to reply to any debate on Scotland. It is perhaps surprising for the Leader of the House to reply to an Adjournment debate but I do not worry about that too much because this is a serious situation and I regard my duties to this House as being such that I should be here to respond to serious situations when they arise. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps I do have slight merit in intervening in a Scottish debate even though I am one of the worst things that there could be, a Scot who has left Scotland and who has not, so far, returned to it, because I have left it by the narrowest of margins—there could not be a smaller margin. I live up against the Scottish Border.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) reminded me of the time when I stood for Parliament in Scotland. It hardly needs to be added in view of what has happened since that I was not successful—[Interruption.] I am nevertheless delighted to be reinforced now by my hon. Friend from the Scottish Office, the Under-Secretary of State for Development—more delighted than I can say. Nevertheless, having got to my feet, I ought to say a few more words and I hope that he will reply to the other matters which are raised later.
The hon. Member for West Lothian raised the scheme for the renovation of towns and cities with which I have the greatest sympathy. It is fair to remind him that considerable sums have been provided for infrastructure work in Scotland and the other development regions. I remember specific measures in Glasgow for the underground and other things. The schemes which he has put forward should be carefully considered and I can assure him that they will be. I appreciate the fair way in which he has put them forward and I will ensure, and I know my hon. Friend—now that he has arrived—will do likewise, that these matters are carefully considered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Greenock said that some of the measures already taken such as the house improvement grant scheme had not had the effect they should have had. He would not expect me to comment on that without being fully conversant with what has happened and

what has been achieved. I undertake to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look into these matters and to inform the House about what has happened. No one can doubt that considerable measures have been taken by the Government, particularly concerning the infrastructure, and they should have had a considerable effect. If they have not, the reasons will be carefully examined. I give that undertaking.
With those remarks I have exhausted any credibility that I am likely to have in a Scottish debate. However, I hope that I have shown the importance which the Government attach to the particularly difficult employment situation in Scotland. I realise that there are Scottish Members present who would prefer to make their own points rather than listen to me. I therefore hope that they will think it reasonable if I sit down and allow them to make them. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development will be pleased, at the end of the debate, to reply to what they say.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: Hon. Members on this side of the House are ready at all times to talk about unemployment in Scotland. In October, 1971, we tried to discuss it under Standing Order No. 9. We attempted again to discuss it in November and December, and no doubt the opportunity will be afforded to us to do so again when the next unemployment figures are known.
All sorts of things have been said by the Government. Only last week the Prime Minister, in one of his many speeches outwith the House, said that we were on the eve of a great expansion and that the country was booming. We must therefore expect from the Prime Minister an assurance that the present policy is adequate to deal with the situation or, if it is not, be told what the Government intend to do about it.
Last week a delegation from the Scottish Development Council was met by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and, I believe, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the three Ministers primarily concerned with the unemployment situation in the development areas and in the rest of the country. The view has been expressed by the Scottish Development


Council, it has been repeated tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and it has been put many times from this side of the House that the departure from the investment grant policy of the Labour Government was the start of the serious unemployment.
Assurances have been given to the Scottish Development Council and the Scottish T.U.C. and in reply to representations made to the Government by hon. Members on this side that there would be a change of policy. During the Summer Recess, some of my colleagues and I met the Secretary of State for Scotland at St. Andrew's House when he told us that the Government were contemplating a change of policy. But it was only a question of contemplation and since then there has been a terrific upsurge in unemployment.
The Leader of the House mentioned that he has Scottish connections. In fact, he has a considerable connection with my constituency in that he has very valuable land in Bothwell—in Holytown, to be precise. I am sure that he is desirous that that ground should be used for fruitful and progressive reasons.
We have been talking about infrastructure and money available to local authorities but, if certain local authorities are not prepared to use the money, obviously the infrastructure will not be done. It must be recognised by the Government that the infrastructure policy is only short-term because that work has to be completed by March, 1973. By that time, if Government policy has not changed, the figure of 150,000 unemployed which we expect by next month will have increased considerably.
On 14th February the Scottish Trades Union Congress is to convene a convention in the capital of Scotland. At that convention we shall have representations from all shades of opinion. Members of Parliament have been invited and the Church of Scotland, which has expressed itself clearly about unemployment, has made it clear that it will be represented. I know that the Roman Catholic Church will be represented at this convention. Unemployment has now become, therefore, a matter of national concern. It is now away from the political arena.
The only people who do not seem to be putting forward any sort of thesis about it, any thesis to give us any hope of reducing the unemployment, are the Government themselves. I can only hope that the Lord President of the Council will be able to do something about it. He, incidentally, has spoken in many debates here about unemployment. I believe I am correct in stating that on the last three occasions when we have discussed unemployment he has participated in the debate.
It is not good enough that we should just be talking about it in this House. It is no great credit to any of us to be talking about the unemployed. What we conveniently forget—I have said this many times—is the social consequences of unemployment. Many people throughout the country will never work again. We have discovered, from figures presented to us when we have put Questions to the appropriate Ministers, that men have been or will be thrown on the scrap heap at the age of 52 and that their prospects of getting further employment are virtually non-existent, because employers at the present time are looking for younger people. We have to consider also the contraction which is taking place in various industries. I can mention with some authority only the steel industry in Lanarkshire. Undoubtedly contraction is taking place in that industry there, and that will continue unless the Government do something sensational—and the opportunities are there for them.
Many of my colleagues want to participate in this debate, and therefore I shall say only very briefly that the Government have a duty and responsibility to the people of Scotland to tell them where the Government stand about Hunterston. Lord Melchett told us when we met him that the iron ore terminal is an absolute necessity for the steel industry in Scotland—and that is apart from the complex as a whole. We are entitled to demand the iron ore terminal for Hunterston.
We all appreciate that if and when we get the oil industry going with the rapidity for which we all hope, we have to take cognisance of its effects—and I am thinking of pollution and the things which go with it. So there is a great deal of thought to be given to these problems by the Government.
Most important, we do not want thoughts only, we do not want thinking only. What we demand for the people of Scotland is action. We hope that the Government will, at a very early stage, be able to tell us that they have had a reappraisal of their existing policy which has proved to be a failure and that they will give Scotland a policy which equals the amount of work which we on this side of the House have done, and the amount of energy we have applied, to try to solve this very serious problem. We look for a change which will prove conclusively to us that the Government have not, by their political record, written off the people of Scotland.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. The first point I make touches on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). If we are to reform local government in Scotland, and if we are to reduce the number of local authorities, the detailed administration of this change will involve some local authorities in taking over what might be considered liabilities rather than social assets in certain of our towns.
At this point in time, therefore, we should carry forward the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. The Government should take the initiative and give to the existing local authorities an incentive to refurbish certain town centres. I am not just thinking of the cities. There are a number of villages which may be absorbed into the new authorities which ought to be refurbished and become an asset not only from the point of view of the existing population but from the point of view of tourism, too.
One such village which comes to mind —I hope that I do not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter)—is Kincardine. Kincardine ought to be looked at from the point of view of tourist attraction. Assistance could well

be given—I hope that I do not embarrass Fife County Council by this suggestion—so that an opportunity is taken here to create a tourist attraction on the Forth along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.
My next point is directly related to the type of incentive or initiative which the Government should take. We are today losing into unemployment highly skilled Scottish manpower. In shipbuilding on the Clyde, design teams are being eroded and run down. If we are to move into the era of the high-cost liquid natural gas carrier, the Government should give design contracts for this costly work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) said, we expect incentive and initiative also in relation to North Sea oil. I want the present opportunity to be used so as to bring to Scotland a much more solidly and indigenously based petroleum technology. If the Department of Trade and Industry were showing real imagination, it would be doing something to help to bring the building of these ships to the Clyde. We are trying to get them built at the moment, albeit by an American company. They are costly and highly complicated vessels. Nowadays, the difference between a naval ship and a merchant ship is narrowing until it is virtually imperceptible. If this type of work is to be brought to the Clyde—we have already built some—it is most important that design contracts be given.
We are looking for an opportunity to stabilise employment. It is hard for us Scots to say that we are thinking only of stabilising employment rather than raising it, but that is our position just now. The Government should back the building of liquid natural gas carriers on the Clyde by giving a design contract, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland were worth his salt he would be battling for such a move in the Cabinet now.
The whole Scottish economy, as we move into the last quarter of the twentieth century, depends on a decision at Hunterston. There is no doubt about that. If we are to have all the activities we want in relation to the bringing in of cheap bulk raw materials and working on them, with Scottish skills, by developing new industries, it is essential that the Government give the go-ahead at Hunterston. The Clydeport Authority


and others are discussing the ore terminal, but the Government have to create a specialised agency to do this job. It is no use waiting for the reform of local government. Some form of industrial holding company has to be created in Scotland to do the job. The Government should throw away their dogma that it can be done on the basis of existing private enterprise or awaiting the reform of local government.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, is here. He happily got the Leader of the House out of the bunker he was in. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to press on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for the initiation of studies to see how an industrial holding company can be created in Scotland to make use of the natural advantages of Hunterston as an industrial project and take-off base for Scotland in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am delighted to have this opportunity to join my hon. Friends in pleading the cause of the unemployed in Scotland. I should declare my interest, inasmuch as I have been unemployed as a young married man with a young family. Again, it is a year from tomorrow since I joined the Post Office strike which began on 20th January last year. This, too, was a period of extreme difficulty for me, and I know the social consequences of being out of work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) mentioned that the Scottish Trade Union Congress regards unemployment in Scotland so seriously that it has taken the almost unprecedented step of convening the Scottish Assembly on Monday, 14th February, at which delegates of all persuasions have been invited to join their ideas to try to find a solution to this problem which has plagued Scotland for so long and which is of such large proportions at this time in our history.
I have recently emerged from a by-election in Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, a highly industrialised constituency. I well remember saying in September, 1971, that my constituency

was not insulated from the effects of unemployment. I am sorry to say that I have been proved correct and that weekly, and almost daily, people in my constituency are being thrown out of work in industries that should be expanding and developing but which, because of the Government's economic policies, are neither expanding nor developing. This is a tragic situation not only in my constituency but throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
I also said in September—and I make no apology for repeating it tonight—that we in Scotland probably have the best educated unemployed in the world. The unemployment figures conceal the fact that many pupils who have left school have had to return to school because they have been unable to find employment in any industry of any description.
I will refer briefly to specific proposals such as Oceanspan, a project of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), which requires close study and which would go some way if not all the way to solving the problems of Scotland.
I also wish to refer to the oil industry since the centre of that industry in Scotland is in my constituency. I plead the cause once again that, if we do not get this development right, no benefits will accrue to Scotland or to Great Britain as a whole. If we allow indiscriminate development of the oil industry in Scotland, and if the whole process is not co-ordinated by the Minister at the Scottish Office, I am sure that from an economic point of view the second chance we have will slip through our fingers. If this is allowed to happen, we shall live to regret it for generations to come.
I also wish to refer to an industry on which we base great hopes for the future, namely the electronics industry of Scotland. This industry has collapsed and requires special measures to be taken to protect it and build it up once again. When I went into my constituency there was an electronics factory there employing about 700 people. That work force has now been reduced to less than 400. I should not like to hazard a guess at that factory's future. I emphasise that we look to the electronics industry as a basis for the future.
I do not want to be ungracious, or spiteful or mean, but I wish to point out that during the last Conservative term of office in 1963, we had the highest unemployment figures in the history of Scotland. At the end of that Government's term of office we were left with a financial deficit of £800 million. But the deficit which will be left at the end of their present term of office will be a deficit of lives blighted by unemployment. This will be the tragedy of the economic policies operated by this present Government, which so far have failed. I plead with the Government to change their ways before the situation gets much worse.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: We should be grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office has now arrived to take his seat on the Front Bench since the question of unemployment is of great moment and seriousness in Scotland. When I was working in industry it was always the practice to penalise workers for arriving late for duty—in fact they lost their bonuses. I do not know what will hapen to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) because he was certainly very late in arriving.

Mr. James Sillars: He might lose his seat.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend says that the Minister might as a consequence lose his seat. I tend to agree.
In the short time at my disposal I do not wish to deal with the long-term situation. We all know that the unemployment figure in Scotland is quite obscene and it will give nobody any pleasure tomorrow to see that the figure has probably increased even more. The figure at present is over 140,000.
The problem is that the present Government never listen to anybody. When they came into office they said they would cut unemployment at a stroke and would do certain things to prices. But they were oblivious to any advice that was sought to be given to them by outside bodies. It has already been said that the Scottish T.U.C. is to hold a special assembly in February in the Usher Hall. I hope the Government will listen to that body this time. The Scottish T.U.C. told

them that unemployment in Scotland would escalate to the present figure, and indeed it is now predicting that it will go even higher.
We know that the Conservative Party was decisively rejected in Scotland at the last election. The voters did not trust the Conservatives then. Heaven knows how they feel at present. Nevertheless, there is a moral obligation on the Government to see that the people of Scotland are not punished any more severely as a result of the Conservatives having gained victory at the General Election.
During the term of office of present Government, we have seen some rather significant things happening. For the first time in history, 80 local authorities of every political complexion have come to Parliament to lobby hon. Members. They have decided to do that because unemployment in Scotland has become so serious that they have flung away their political differences and come here to try to explain to hon. Members on both sides how local authorities could help in dealing temporarily with the problem of unemployment in Scotland.
What did those local authority representatives say to hon. Members? They said that the problem of unemployment—a million unemployed in the country as a whole, and more than 140,000 in Scotland—is running away with the Government and they do not know how to control it. They told us that the way for the Government to tackle the problem is not by talking about giving local authorities 75 per cent. grants to carry out certain projects. There are projects which local authorities could carry out, and if the Government gave them 100 per cent. grants on some of their programmes they would be able to have some effect on the present unemployment position.
The Under-Secretary has a moral obligation to persuade his Government that this is a matter that they should consider in the short term rather than in the long term, with a view to tackling the obscene figures that we see in Scotland today.
The second thing that the hon. Gentleman's Government—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman need not look at the time. He was late coming into the Chamber. I was about to refer to the possibility referred to by my hon. Friend


the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). It is the possibility of building more houses.
Since this Government came into being, they have been hell-bent on reducing building output. As a consequence, the amount of unemployment amongst building trade operatives is scandalous. If the Government scrapped the Housing Bill which is at present being considered by a Scottish Standing Committee, they would go some way to relieving the present unemployment problem. If they really want to do something about it now, let them accelerate local authority house building.
The third thing that they can do is to realise that the so-called consumer boom that the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about is not striking Scotland. The realisation of a 4½per cent. growth would probably result in only about another 10,000 jobs in Scotland. An improvement of that sort in the context of 140,000 or 150,000 unemployed is not even beginning to look at the problem. If the Government want to create a consumer boom in Scotland, they should increase old age pensions immediately. If they increase the pension by £5 a week, one thing is certain. It is that if old people get £5 a week on their pensions, they will spend it. If they do that, there will be an increase in consumption generally which will help immediately to improve the economy.
Finally, in any approach that the hon. Gentleman makes to his Government he would do well to bear in mind the present miners' strike. The fact that Scottish miners are on strike will make the unemployment position even worse. Many of Scotland's industries are dependent upon the mining industry. I have in mind engineering and industries engaged in producing consumer goods. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell the Cabinet Ministers who spoke in yesterday's debate without any heart and without any hope of being able to solve this industrial dispute that they should realise the serious unemployment position in Scotland and invite the miners to talks and give them more money, since they have put an unanswerable case before the nation. If these things were done by the Government they would help to solve the terrible problem of unemployment in Scotland.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take heed of what we regard as a very important debate tonight.

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I have known the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for a considerable time. I respect and appreciate the sincerity with which he has spoken about this subject. He feels very strongly about it. However, it is unlike him to be so unfair in his references to me. The normal convention of the House is that a Minister from the Scottish Office would always wish to be present if any subject affecting Scotland were to be discussed. It would be my wish always to be present on such occasions. I think that I have always been present at these times and I always will be.
I should like to mention two points. The first concerns the time which I have been given to reply to the debate. It was carefully arranged that I should get up to speak at a quarter past ten. I could so easily have prevented the hon. Gentleman from speaking tonight by getting up after the hon. Member who spoke before him. I think that probably somebody from this side would have been called and, as I was the only Member getting up, that would have been me. However, I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to speak. But he then proceeded to take far longer than the time which I had been given.

Mr. Eadie: How long did I take?

Mr. Younger: About seven minutes.

Mr. Eadie: That is not a long time, is it?

Mr. Younger: I should be pleased—

Mr. Sillars: On a point of order. Would it not facilitate the business of the debate if the Minister came to the point instead of arguing in this manner?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I think that the debate would be facilitated by agreements about time being fulfilled.

Mr. Younger: It would indeed be convenient if I said nothing about this to the hon. Member for Midlothian, but I feel


that this is one of the rare occasions on which I have not been fairly treated.
I turn now to the timing of the debate. The House went on to the Adjournment at five minutes past eight this evening. I was in the House at that time. I had received no notice of any intention by any Scottish Member to raise any subject affecting either me or anyone else. If I had had such a notice, I assure the House that I would have cancelled anything I was going to do and been here and done my best to obtain any information necessary to answer the debate.
I want to be specific about this matter. I have the notice which I was given of this debate. It is from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) who is usually very courteous and punctilious in these matters. The message reads, "If the debate collapses try to raise supply of Scottish unemployment and my Consolidated Fund debate, 16th December".
This is a telephone message which is timed at 8.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: rose

Mr. Younger: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this part of my speech, because he is always courteous in these matters and I want to be courteous, too.
The message is timed 8.45 p.m. I had left the House, as I was perfectly entitled to do, the Adjournment having started and I having had no notice of any Scottish matters being raised. It is not a bad effort, the message being timed at 8.45 p.m., that I should be in the House less than an hour afterwards, having been located, ready to answer the debate. I claim that as one of the best records that any Scottish Minister can have for coming to a debate without notice.

Mr. Dalyell: Part of the difficulty was that a P.P.S. at the Scottish Office did not conceive it his business to pass on a message to Ministers.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is usually very good about these matters. I do not want to blame him. No doubt he did his best. My only concern is the implication by some hon. Members that I should have been here. I am most willing to come and answer debates. I have shown that in the past and will do so in future.
I will now come to the content of the debate.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I was given notice half an hour after he was. I suggest that he should say that he is sorry he was not here and immediately get on to the business.

Mr. Younger: I think I have said that three times already. I am extremely sorry that I was not here. I hope that, with the help of both sides, we will not allow this to happen again, because it is a bad thing.
I now come to the subject matter of the debate. I share the concern of hon. Gentlemen opposite about Scottish unemployment. One matter on which we can be united is the deep concern that all must feel about it.
Some hon. Members mentioned the social consequences. One hon. Gentleman—it may have been the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton); I apologise if it was not him—said that we are sometimes unaware of the social consequences. I agree that sometimes some people are, but I assure him that the Government are not unaware of the social consequences. It is a matter which constantly comes to our attention day in, day out. That is why we have spent so much time, energy and money in the past year and a half trying to reverse this trend which was going like a fire when we came into office. One has only to look at the figure of 93,000 unemployed in June, 1970, when we came to office. I should like to know what statistical analysis would have led one to expect, in July, 1970, that the figure would go up to the extent that it did in the following winter.
What on earth do hon. Gentlemen opposite think the measures taken by the Government since then have been designed to do? They have been designed to move away from the policies carried out by the Labour Party. There was a reduction in corporation tax from the rate fixed by the Labour Party. How much would it have helped unemployment if the rates fixed by the Labour Party were operating now? We halved the rate of S.E.T. We removed half the tax which the Labour Party put on the economy. How much would it have helped the unemployed now if the Labour


Government's rate of S.E.T. had been in operation? Purchase tax was reduced for the first time since the Conservative Government were last in power. How much would it have helped the unemployed in Scotland if the purchase tax rates operated by the Labour Government were in operation now?
What about the changes in house improvement grants? Would it have helped the unemployed to have had the Labour Government's rates? How much would it have helped the unemployed in Scotland if we had abolished any idea of proper rent rebates for everybody in Scotland? Would that have helped the unemployed? What about rent allowances for private tenants? How much would it help the unemployed to remove them and refuse to put them into action?
All those measures are moves away from the economic policies which the Labour Party practised for five grim years in Scotland. The harvest we have reaped is the harvest of the policies introduced by the Labour Party and operated for five years. It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to ignore these facts of life. They do not like my mentioning them.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) had the courage to mention the alleged deficit of £800 million in 1964. Where has he been since 1964? Has he been travelling all over the Far East? As he knows, that deficit, if it vere was a real genuine deficit, was surpassed by his Government. The hon. Gentleman would like to forget that.
What about the balance of payments? The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) does not have much to say about that. He talks about his housing figures. When did we start to see a decline in the number of housing starts? Was it when this Government were in office? The answer is, of course not. It started in 1968 and 1969. When did the squeeze start which has led to

the present unemployment? It started, not in 1970, but in 1966, with the measures introduced by his Government.
I share the concern of everyone for the plight of the unemployed, but what I do not accept is the idea that this is something for which hon. Gentlemen opposite have no responsibility. My authority for saying that they are responsible for the present situation is the hon. Member for Greenock himself, because, in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, he agreed that he could not say that his Government had no responsibility for the present unemployment situation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Younger: That is what the hon. Gentleman said, and he can look it up in HANSARD. Had I been given more notice of the debate, I should have brought the reference with me. Hon. Gentlemen know that the reason for the present unemployment situation is to be found in their six years of grim squeeze and high interest rates, and if it is ever allowed to happen again the consequences could be even more serious. This Government are committed to policies designed to get the economy expanding again, which it never did under the Labour Party, and once we get it expanding we shall see the problem being solved.
According to hon. Gentlemen opposite the whole of this business should be forgotten and written off as something which the Government could have prevented from happening. When we came to office there were 93,000 unemployed, which is more than half whatever the figure was last month. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that when we came to office the figure was increasing rapidly.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 19th January, 1972

[MR. ALAN FITCH in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. Alan Fitch (Chairman)


Blenkinsop, Mr. Arthur (South Shields)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy (Rochester and


Channon, Mr. Paul (Under-Secretary of
Chatham)


State for the Environment)
Fisher, Mr. Nigel (Surbiton)


Churchill, Mr. (Stretford)
Gibson-Watt, Mr. David (Minister of


Clark, Mr. David (Colne Valley)
State, Welsh Office)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Goodhew, Mr. Victor (St. Albans)


Cunningham, Mr. George (Islington,
Hamilton, Mr. Michael (Salisbury)


South-West)
Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract)


Dalyell, Mr. Tarn (West Lothian)
Pike, Miss Mervyn (Melton)


Davies, Mr. Ifor (Gower)
Ridsdale, Mr. Julian (Harwich)


Dunnett, Mr. Jack (Nottingham, Central)
Sinclair, Sir George (Dorking)


English, Mr. Michael (Nottingham, West)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony (The Wrekin)



Mr. Sands, Committee Clerk

FIELD MONUMENTS BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the Field Monuments Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's Sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Channon.]

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Field Monuments Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
I hope that the Committee will agree to recommend that the Bill be read a Second time. It is a modest but not insignificant Bill, and it will be of considerable help in the protection of some of our ancient monuments, an objective

which I am sure is supported in all parts of the House.
The Bill relates exclusively to field monuments. I could, if the Committee wished it, deal in some detail with the way in which ancient monuments legislation works in general, but I can see from the attendance today that a number of hon. Members will be familiar with the subject. Unless asked, therefore, I shall not deal with it in detail.
The Bill is a modest Measure, dealing only with those ancient monuments which can properly be described as field monuments. What are field monuments? I suppose that the most obvious examples are burial mounds and earthworks, but there are many other types—hill forts, linear earthworks, and deserted mediaeval


villages. They vary considerably in size, though the great majority are very small. There are, for example, about 45 field monuments in West Lothian, of which two are already in guardianship. In the Gower Peninsula there might be as many as 30, of which five are in guardianship. There is a large number of field monuments throughout the country—I estimate about 100,000 individual sites, though nobody knows exactly.
In toto, these monuments amount to a very important national heritage, and they are arousing increasing public interest. Of the 100,000, about 8,000 are scheduled by my right hon. Friend as ancient monuments. They form the most important category, and their preservation is of national importance—that is the definition chosen for scheduling. I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that those monuments should be preserved.
However, as I think all members of the Committee will realise, in recent years there has been a new threat to the preservation of field monuments. There has been a considerable change in agricultural techniques. Methods of ploughing, for example, involve a much deeper disturbance of the surface than was the case in the past; much more pasture-land is becoming agricultural, and there is much more afforestation. The Department of the Environment carried out a pilot survey in Wiltshire and showed that well over half of 640 field monuments had been damaged during the past ten years some to the point of destruction. The county of Wiltshire forms a most important example, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) is present today. Wiltshire may have over 2,000 monuments, which is by far the highest concentration in Great Britain. It is therefore of particular importance.
It was realised some time ago that, as a result of the changes I have mentioned, thousands of scheduled field monuments were simultaneously threatened by erosion and destruction. In theory, they could be protected. Under the existing Acts owners have to give three months' notice of intention to carry out any work affecting scheduled monuments, during which period the Secretary of State has the opportunity and the power to stop the proposed works, subject to

compensation. However, over the years it has become the practice not to require notice of ploughing over field monuments, on the grounds that ploughing was light and was not thought to harm the monuments.
What are the possible solutions to the problem? The whole Committee will probably agree that it would be ridiculous to assume that we could forbid further ploughing. It would be unfair to the farmers, and it would impose enormous financial and administrative problems. Thousands of farmers would be required to give statutory notice of ploughing. Compulsory protection would require millions more pounds and many expert civil servants to provide compensation payments within a short period. If the Government adopted that approach it is doubtful whether it would work. Would the statutory notices be received, and would it be a fruitful way of proceeding? It is highly doubtful, and I am sure that the results would not be at all satisfactory.
However, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will probably agree that the situation could not be left as it was. The previous Government set up a Committee under Sir David Walsh to examine arrangements for the protection of field monuments. The whole Committee will wish to thank Sir David and his colleagues for their unanimous report on the subject, which has been widely welcomed by all concerned, including those interested in the archaeological aspects, and farming and landowning interests. The Bill, which is based on one of the most important recommendations in the report, has also been widely welcomed, and I hope will be found to be non-controversial in the House.
Sir David Walsh's Committee made 44 main recommendations and a total of 70 recommendations. In general, with one or two very minor caveats, all have been welcomed by the Government. Some will take longer than others to implement; for example, some will need more staff. However, by far the most important and certainly the most urgent of the recommendations is that which the Committee made for a system of acknowledgment payments.
This brings me to the problem and the solution incorporated in the Bill. The


Field Monuments Committee, under Sir David Walsh, concluded that the good will which farmers and other occupiers already felt towards their monuments would be sufficiently stimulated if they could be provided with an explanation of the importance of the monuments, and offered some tangible acknowledgment of the hindrance to their operations arising from the existence of those monuments. The Committee accordingly recommended a system of voluntary agreements between the Government and occupiers of scheduled monuments threatened by agriculture or forestry. Occupiers who were prepared to respect their monuments and keep them free of weeds and vermin would in return, be entitled to annual payments in acknowledgement of the consequential interference with their operations.
I think that all of us would like to congratulate the Committee on the imaginative solution which it found. I regard it as a good one, because it is founded on the two principles of good will and voluntary agreement. It has been agreed by both the archaeological and land-using members of the Committee, and welcomed alike by the archaeological world and farming, forestry and landowning interests, including the National Farmers' Union and the C.L.A. There need be no fear that the scheme will inhibit agricultural production; it is limited to monuments which are both scheduled and threatened in the way that I have described.
I estimate that no more than about 8,000 monuments or groups of monuments, comprising about 17,000 individual sites, such as burial mounds, will qualify. The majority of the sites will be small. Some may ask whether this will be too narrow. Should not threats other than from agriculture and forestry qualify? It must be remembered that other types of development are subject to planning control, which allows the merits of a development to be weighed against those of the monument. Agricultural operations on the other hand, have—with the agreement of successive Governments—not been subject to that kind of planning control.
What will happen if the occupier refuses to enter the scheme? I suppose there could be such cases—though I hope

not—perhaps because the site is particularly important to the farmer rather than for lack of good will. Each such case would have to be considered on its merits. If the monument were important enough it could be protected under existing powers and the farmer would have the right to appeal and, if need be, to use the special parliamentary procedure that exists in this case. The scheme is voluntary. It is not envisaged that the occupier will be expected to commit himself for more than one year at a time, although when further experience has been gained it may be possible, again by agreement, to extend the period in appropriate cases. Nor will any new right of public access be conferred by the agreement.
Since thousands of monuments will qualify, the scheme must be easy to understand and as simple as possible to administer. There will be explanatory leaflets and appropriate publicity. Perhaps there should also be a system of annual standard payments, varying with the size of the monument.
On all these points we shall need the advice and help of farming, forestry and land-owning organisations. I am glad to say that this has been readily available; we are already in close touch with them. A further meeting will probably take place this week. Some hon. Members may have received a letter from the National Farmers' Union, written on 14th January, welcoming the acknowledgement payment scheme along the lines recommended by Sir David Walsh. Detailed negotiations will begin shortly.
I now turn to the cost of the scheme and the staff. The build-up will be gradual, but I estimate that when all agreements have been made for monuments which will qualify the eventual cost will be about £150,000 a year. The rate of the standard payments will fall to be settled in the consultations which are about to begin.
As I have said, about 8,000 monuments are involved, including about 17,000 individual sites. Agreements will need to be reached with, and payments made to, individual occupiers. Therefore, a fair number of staff will be needed—eventually up to about 30. Of these, about six will be professionals—inspectors of ancient monuments—up to a dozen might be clerical or executive


officers, and there will be about a dozen wardens, who have a specially important task. They will spend their time in the field and will be our first line of personal contact with occupiers who wish to put any problems to them. The wardens will also inspect the monuments—not only those covered by the scheme but others in the area. That will help towards implementing another recommendation of the Field Monuments Committee, namely, that scheduled monuments should be inspected regularly.
The fact that we are willing to make these resources of money and staff available shows that the Government attach high prioriy to this important requirement.
I now turn to the Clauses of this simple Bill. The first Clause covers the essential features of the scheme, and the remaining Clauses and Schedules are largely consequential. Clause 1 sets out the circumstances in which monuments will qualify for acknowledgement payment agreements and those to whom the payments will be made. It leaves ample room for the detailed arrangements of the agreements and the periods to be varied, by agreement, in the light of experience.
The payments are to be in respect of scheduled field monuments endangered by agriculture or forestry. They will be made to the occupier rather than to the land-owner, because it is the occupier who will need to avoid the monuments in the course of his day-to-day operations. Owner-occupiers will, of course, be entitled to the payments, and land-owners generally may wish to be associated with the agreements. Some of them may well conceive this to be in the interests of good estate management.
There are so many types of field monuments, some of which I have mentioned, that it would be difficult to provide an exhaustive definition. A field monument is therefore defined as a monument scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Acts, which means that it is of national importance.
The Clause is broadly worded; in particular, the content of agreement dealt with in Clause 1(3) allows flexibility for possible future needs or for special cases. The agreements will be voluntary. In

any case, there is no intention of preventing anything that will not harm the monument. For instance, although the farmer would naturally have to refrain from cultivating the monument, grazing would be quite acceptable—perhaps even welcomed in appropriate cases. There would also be the need to keep the monument free of weeds and vermin, which could damage it. That would be suggested by the requirements of good husbandry. Indeed, some farmers who plough monuments simply because this is the easiest way of dealing with weeds and vermin may be glad to accept the acknowledgement payments instead.
Clause 2 is largely consequential, and links the agreements with the statutory provisions of the Ancient Monuments Acts whereby the person responsible for a scheduled monument has to give three months' notice of any work affecting it, being free thereafter to proceed unless the Secretary of State has meanwhile placed the monument under his statutory protection.
The Clause is designed to meet a case where the occupier decides not to renew an acknowledgement payment agreement. Although he must naturally continue to be bound during the period covered by the agreement, it would clearly not be right to expect him to wait up to a further three months beyond it. Accordingly, the Clause provides that the statutory notice may be given at any time during the currency of an agreement, and will expire either at the end of the period covered by the agreement or three months after the date of the notice, whichever is the later.
Clause 3 simply relates the Bill to the Ancient Monuments Acts, and will facilitate consolidation of ancient monuments legislation in due course. It contains the customary privilege Amendment inserted in another place.
Part I of the Schedule deals with technical legal points covering certain limited ownership and Part II to the enforcement of the agreements, all this with due regard to the differences between English and Scottish law.
In this country experience has taught us that the best guarantee for the protection of ancient monuments rests in the good will of occupiers and owners, which, in this country—except in very


rare cases—has always been forthcoming. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which it has been forthcoming. This scheme is no exception.
The scheme commits itself to the voluntary principle of proceeding by agreement but, at the same time, it recognises that in the current situation of field monuments the occupier should not be left to carry all the consequences of his own good will. It provides some monetary acknowledgement of the contribution that he makes. The scheme was not only proposed, but also welcomed, by both the archæological and land-using interests, and I hope that that is a good omen for the future.
This is a modest Measure, which could have important consequences. It may remove a serious threat from thousands of monuments, all of archæological importance and many of significance to our countryside and environment. If so, this little Bill will make a much more than modest contribution towards the preservation of field monuments and of what most of us would regard as an important part of our national heritage. I hope that the Committee will agree that the Bill should be read a Second time, and will recommend accordingly to the House.

10.47 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is quite true that what has brought this Bill forward and brought the situation to a head is that modern deep ploughing has transformed the situation of the ancient monuments. New methods of agriculture have made it much easier and, indeed, much more attractive to destroy these ancient monuments than was the case even a few years ago.
One of the things which interest us is the money aspect. We are interested in how the Government, and indeed the Walsh Committee, arrived at the figure of £150,000. We are told that there are some 8,000 of these ancient monuments, not all of which, I admit, come within the scope of the Bill. However, some arithmetic must be done because this works out at roughly £20 per farmer per monument per year.
Some of these barrows are extremely small, and for £20 a year a farmer can rent and grow corps on a good deal of ground—in fact, a far larger expanse of

ground for £20 rent a year than would be covered by most of the typical barrows. I am not criticising too much, but I think we have to be persuaded that this is a reasonable figure. I think that when the Minister winds up we ought to be told how this figure was arrived at and what remuneration and compensation are thought fit for occupiers. I agree with the Government that it should go to occupiers rather than to landowners in this case.
There is another question which I think the Committee should reflect on. The Minister kept on saying that it was part of our heritage. This goes without saying, but how much of this particular heritage ought to be preserved? I think that those of us who are interested in preserving our heritage really have to do ourselves credit and be selective. Those who say that everything must be preserved regardless, do the cause of preserving more harm than good.
Having talked to a number of archaeologists and having once indulged in digging, my reflection is that perhaps a more rational approach would be to select certain things that are clearly worth preserving on the star basis which the Walsh Report talks about. In relation to other barrows, I think it is worth considering whether we ought to have a system of photographs and records and then a conscious decision as to whether a particular monument is worth preserving. I do not think there is much to be said for preserving 8,000 sites.
This raises another question for the Government. If money is not available for archaeological preservation, ought it automatically to be channelled into the preservation of barrows, however prehistoric, rather than to be used otherwise? An example that springs to mind is that of Roman Lincoln. The Minister knows as well as I do that there is a very real problem, in that archaeological discovery in urban areas can be far more valuable than in country areas, and far more worth preserving, but of course far more expensive to preserve. As he knows well, there is considerable competition for funds in this field. I think one is at least justified in asking on Second Reading what the overall coherent philosophy of the Government is in this, whether the money that is available is best spent in paying out in this way to farmers. or


whether some of it, at any rate, should be diverted to archaeological societies in a few of our old cities, where there is a crying need for something to be done quickly.
The Minister referred to the archaeological interests that had agreed in toto with the Bill and accepted it, and I should like to know which archaeological interests he has consulted. I, too, have talked to archaeologists. Perhaps it is true that, like philosophers and economists, they are a fractious lot, but, having said this, I think we ought to know what is the official archaeological advice which the Government have received.
I continue on this theme of competition for funds. If I were the distributor of funds, I think I would wonder whether they ought to be diverted over a large number of barrows, or whether they ought to be concentrated, for example, in the preservation of a few areas of ancient field systems. It is known to the Department and to the Minister that the ancient field systems are unique in the whole of Western Europe because much land, unlike the continent, was marginal in Britain. For example, there are over 30 acres of Durrington Walls in Wiltshire. I do not know whether it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton). This is a site which is bigger than Avebury, and I should like to know whether part of the £150,000—it might have to be a significant proportion of it—is to be earmarked for a site such as Durrington Walls. I am not saying that every ancient field system should be preserved; this would be extremely costly and might not be worth while. All I am asking is that the Department of the Environment should look around the country, select perhaps three or four ancient field systems, decide what it wants to preserve and than divert funds and concentrate them. I should like an answer on this point.
This is linked with another thing which the Miinster said in his speech, that there would be reliance on good will. I think the Government are quite right to rely on good will. But if one is dealing with Durrington Walls or any other site of over 30 acres, this requires a good deal of good will, and a farmer or an owner-occupier might feel that he should be

compensated for what he is doing for the nation. I would myself favour some form of restrictive covenant in such a case to see that the land is not ploughed up.
There is another competitor for funds in this field, and that is the whole operation of rescue dogs, as it has come to be known. I think I am right in saying that during the construction of the M4 no fewer than 150 archaeological sites of some interest were discovered, and, if I may be local for a moment, in the motorway between Edinburgh and Stirling, the new M9, there are a number of objects which might have required more excavation and more interest than they have received. But the truth is that one cannot suddenly stop an extremely costly motorway operation, costing thousands of pounds per day, just for some possible archaeological interest. This raises the question of what the Government can do to help rescue digs and those who are prepared to take emergency measures.
The Minister was kind enough to refer to the 45 sites in West Lothian. I am glad to say that it was my family who suggested to Professor Stuart Piggott that he should excavate Cairnpapple, and I have a long interest in this. I am not saying that very much of value in West Lothian has been destroyed because of motorway construction. What I am saying is that I suspect that there are places —for example, in Wiltshire—where there is a good deal of value, which are suddenly put in jeopardy and where even a small amount of money, quickly used, could be of benefit.
I turn now to the question of annual payments in acknowledgment of the consequential interference with agricultural operations, and to raise an issue which was pinpointed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, in another place. Lord Greenwood said that it was the thin end of a rather dangerous wedge to start paying people for not doing wrong. This goes against the root principle that the polluter must pay. All I am asking for is a clarification of policy, because I think that Lord Greenwood's question was never answered, and at least it deserves an answer.
Before I become critical, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to pay tribute to the many custodians, some amateur, some in full-time pay and some in part-time pay, who look after our ancient


monuments. In the experience of many of us, they are very devoted people. I am sure this is the same in Wales as in Scotland, and it would be remiss, during this debate, if we did not pay tribute to the amount of work that they often do over and above the call of duty.
I would now, without carping unduly, begin to become a little critical. In a sense perhaps the Bill, although it is quite an important move in the right direction, does not get to the root of the matter. I should like to know why the Walsh Committee has not been implemented in toto. If it is said that this is due to problems of parliamentary time, in our opinion this is an entirely phoney objection. It might be parliamentary draftsmen's time—that is another matter —but not parliamentary time. The Minister sees a number of hon. Members here in this room who have a genuine interest in this subject. It is not the kind of Bill on which we want to start any obstruction at all, and I really do not see why parliamentary time should be given as an objection to implementing in full the recommendations of the Walsh Committee.
I am glad that the 12 wardens have now been appointed. The Minister referred to them as the first line of defence. I should like to be clear about what teeth these wardens actually have. I can see that a lot can be done by good will and a lot can be done by cosy chats. I am all for cosy chats in this field, but there must be the occasion, from time to time, when wardens need powers. What can they actually do with the farmer or the owner-occupier or the landowner who is "bolshie" and difficult and does not want to know? It is quite certain that there will be some farmers who take no interest in this subject and who merely say "You are disturbing our large-scale operations", to whom £20 does not matter very much, and who will not be co-operative. What I am asking is what are the teeth in the Bill which will enable the wardens to do their duty properly?
Turning to another recommendation of the Walsh Committee, has anything been done about aerial photography? This is not simply a fancy idea because, as anyone interested in archaeology knows, it is extremely important. The Walsh Committee said that air surveys

should be commissioned. I should like to know what has been done, because it really gives us a far clearer idea of what our heritage is. Has anything been done about aerial surveys?
I come to the seventh recommendation of the Walsh Committee:
A consolidated record of all known field monuments should be held by the County Planning Authorities so that they may be aware of all such monuments in their areas.
The truth is that some authorities are very good and keep these records. But the Department, the Minister and we know that there are some authorities which have done absolutely nothing about it, and I suspect they have no intention of doing so. What is going to be done by the Department to make sure that the lagging authorities live up to their duties in this respect?
In recommendations 13 to 17, the Walsh Committee said:
Both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Forestry Commission should obtain a declaration from applicants for grants either that no damage would be done to a scheduled field monument or that statutory notice had been given to the Ministry, and if the declaration is not completed satisfactorily the matter should be reported to the Ministry.
What has been done about this?
Coming to Recommendation 14, the liaison procedure with the Forestry Commission, again I should like to hear something on the wind-up.
Recommendation 15 is important:
The Ministry of Defence should review their procedures to ensure that field monuments in training areas are respected, and a regular check of the condition of such monuments should be made.
This particularly affects Salisbury Plain. It may be that the hon. Member for Salisbury is going to speak. I am not attacking the Ministry of Defence, because in some areas it has done more than most, but I think we should be clear as to whether or not they are taking it seriously. I should like an answer from the Government.
On mineral extraction, the Committee says:
The Ministry should approach extraction and development groups to invite their cooperation".
Have the Ministry done this? My information is that they have not, though I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.
Then there is the issue of the labelling of monuments:
The Ministry should make a careful review of the more important monuments and where the threat to survival can be lessened by erection of a notice board and/or marker posts, these should be provided.
I gather that I am not the only one who has detected an absence of marker posts. I should like to know what has been done about this recommendation. I hear assent from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) who knows a great deal about these matters. If he assents, that is good enough for me.
Coming to the improvements in machinery of control, the Walsh Committee said:
The following improvements in the legislation should be considered:
(i) the period in which a prosecution can be initiated, for damage to a monument, should be extended to three years;
I do not set overmuch store by prosecutions, because I am not sure that it is really the way to implement the conservation policies that most of us in this room would like, but nevertheless I should like to hear if there has been any discussion with the Attorney-General.
The Walsh Committee said that
the length of the period of statutory notice should be increased from three to six months;
I gather that this has been taken care of and there is no problem here. It also said that
notices once given should not remain valid indefinitely; there should be provision for withdrawal; and for an automatic end to their validity after two years;
This is important because nothing brings the whole system of notices into disrepute as retaining in force instructions of some kind or another which are dated. It brings all instructions into disrepute. When there are too many notices, the consequence is that people tend to take less and less notice of them.
The Committee said that
powers of compulsory guardianship should be extended;
I should like to know the Ministry's view on that. I do not necessarily agree with the Walsh recommendation, but I should like to know what has happened. It continued
… the Minister should be granted powers to enter on private land to erect a notice

and/or marker posts to define the limits of a monument;
Possibly this is required only rarely, but in some cases it is important. Again, a rather important point,
the adequacy today of the definition of an ancient monument in the Act of 1931 should be considered and the definition widened if necessary;
I should like to hear the Government's views on the whole problem of definition.
It has been said to me—and this is why I asked earlier about the archaeological advice that the Government had received—that some archaeologists are of the view that this is really an attempt by the Government to do something that looks all right. In fact, the Bill before us this morning looks more effective than it really is. It has been put to me on several occasions that this is an excuse for not implementing in toto the Walsh Committee Report.
In the interest of fairness, however, I am bound to say that I have a letter from Robin Fedden of The National Trust, saying that he was wholly satisfied with the Bill and that it was a step in the right direction. Like the Department, I have been in contact with the National Farmers' Union and they are satisfied, and there are a number of other bodies who are also satisfied. But it is fair to say that there are archaeologists who are not satisfied and who see this as an attempt to do something which appears to be more effective than it actually is. I should like to hear the Department counteract that criticism. The way they can do that is by saying what they are going to do about the rest of the recommendations of the Walsh Committee.
I have a constructive suggestion. This is that far more energy ought to be put by the Government Departments as a whole into the possibility of a number of the less important sites—I am not saying that this should apply to the key sites, because that would be absurd, but to those sites which are expendable—being adopted by schools. Here I speak with some personal experience. During the time I worked at a secondary school, I took part in several archaeological digs on sites of no importance at all, but a great deal was learnt by the pupils about archaeological methods. In the hands of


imaginative teachers, of whom we have more and more, a great deal could be done to bring the past home to pupils, who might have no other idea of what ancient times were like. Actually doing a job in the fresh air, in the fields, is often more effective, and has more life to it. than reading about neolithic times, or whatever, in the classroom. There are many barrows that could be adopted by schools and looked after by them.
This meets something else that the Minister has said. The Minister, and the National Farmers' Union's brief, both refer to the need to keep barrows weed-free, to look after them and tend them. Something inside me tells me that there are many farmers who will not use their precious expensive labour in maintaining barrows throughout the summer. They have better things to do. Though some barrows will be well cared for, many more will be regarded by the farmer as a superfluous and costly chore and will be allowed to get weedy and deteriorate. Equally, one could think of many schools. even primary schools, which really would be rather pleased to have young children taking a pride in looking after archaeological sites.
Therefore, I suggest to the Department that they ought to talk to the Education Department and the Scottish Education Department to see whether a circular could be sent round to the schools to see what could be done on a local basis. There really is scope here for imagination. It would save expense and give pleasure, and it would be of educational value to the schools. I am sure the teachers would accept such responsibility.
Perhaps we in this country are not as good at looking after, shall I say, the "second division of our heritage", as other countries are. When it comes to our great monuments, I believe that Britain is as good as anywhere in the world, if not better, but I am talking about "league 2" and "league 3". I recently had the good fortune to be in China. If China, with all her problems, can really take seriously her archaeological sites and put much needed resources into their conservation, at least the British can do the same. This goes for other countries too. Hon. Members who have been in Israel and in some European countries, particularly France, will know what they have

done. I am sure that we can at least measure up to the standards of neighbouring countries. Therefore, in a constructive spirit, yet wanting my questions answered, I put these ideas forward.

11.11 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I will not detain the Committee for more than two minutes. I give the Bill a very warm welcome. My hon. Friend will agree that on occasions I have been critical of his Department in terms of conservation. It therefore gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome the Bill unreservedly. My hon. Friend's Department can take justifiable pride in this Measure.
My hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that there is a wealth of monuments in Wiltshire. They include the great monuments of which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has spoken, such as Stonehenge, in respect of which it must be said that this Administration and its predecessor have done most noble work. Nothing has been too much trouble in caring for it. If a power line requires to be put underground in order to protect that monument, it is put underground.
The Bill is aimed at the humbler monuments, but it is none the worse for that. In passing, I want to express my concern about the monument known as The Moot, at Downton. I have not given a warning on it, but perhaps my hon. Friend could look at it. I am a little uneasy about it. It is the site of an early Saxon Parliament. Its future needs watching by my hon. Friend's Department. If, at a later date, he can give me any reassurance about that monument, I shall be relieved.
The Bill serves to demonstrate the present enlightened attitude of the Department of the Environment towards our monuments, and I wish it every success.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. David Clark: I join my hon. Friend in giving a welcome to the Bill. My hon. Friends and I have certain worries about the Bill—not so much about what it contains as what it does not contain. I shall be more pointed than my hon. Friend, and ask for a Government assurance that this is only the beginning of a series of Bills which the Government intend to introduce in


implementing in full the Walsh Committee suggestions. We should like that assurance if we could possibly have it.
We certainly welcome the Bill. It is a small move towards strengthening the way in which we can protect our national heritage. Everyone welcomes this. This country is experiencing a renewal of interest in our national heritage—if I may use the common phrase. With increased leisure and education and—perhaps even more important—the much more adventurous approach to education, we find that schools are taking a particular interest in local history. One must pay great credit to the C.S.E. boards in schools for encouraging this.
One can already see the awakening of interest not only in Romano-British history but in early industrial history. I represent a constituency which straddles the Pennines in one of its lower sections, where the Roman roads run from the legionary fortresses at Chester across to York. We have the remains of two Roman fortresses in the constituency and one just outside.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put forward many constructive suggestions, and I want to develop one or two of his points. He suggested that we should not be concerned with every field monument but should operate in terms of priority. I suggest that we should work on the basis of priority not only in the historical but in the regional sense. We must consider our heritage not only in terms of historical value but on the basis of whether it can create interest.
It would be very wrong to concentrate entirely on Roman excavations in the Chester area or, in the North along the Hadrian's Wall, and ignore other ancient fortresses in the Pennines or other parts of the country. That has happened in the past, especially in the industrial cities of Lancashire—in places like Wigan and Manchester—where Roman forts once existed which are virtually non-existent now. In the city of Manchester one can see the remains of the Roman walls, but one has to go through a saw mill, and the Roman fort is situated under the arches of the railway track leading from Liverpool to Manchester. If there is to be priority, I

suggest that we operate it on a regional basis.
With the motor car and the increased use of leisure, people will visit archælogical sites if they are properly sign-posted. Great steps have been made in this way with National Trust land, and along the Hadrian's Wall. Some excellent access agreements have been negotiated.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian mentioned aerial photography. Certainly one very eminent archaeologist —I believe that he comes from Cambridge University—uses this technique a great deal. I believe that when some R.A.F. aerial photography was published, just after the war, at least one Roman fort was discovered, in the Kirkpatrick area near Castle Douglas, in South-West Scotland. This aerial photography is unbelievably clear. On the ground one could hardly recognise the site, but from the air one can see the outlines of the forts, the main gates, and where the main buildings were.
Has complete access been given to archaeologists and to R.A.F. aerial photographers? If not, will he undertake to have discussions with the Minister of Defence to see whether it is possible to permit distinguished archaeologists to examine all R.A.F. aerial photography?
In his introduction the Minister mentioned the question of national importance. We are obviously all concerned with this. One point that worries me, however, is that the Bill gives no indication that the help given to occupiers to retain field monuments is to be made public. The field monuments may be there, but is there any guarantee that people can see them? That point needs answering. I raise it because part of my constituency falls within the Peak District National Park, which has probably the best record of all the national parks in this respect. We have found that there has been restricted public access, not necessarily to field monuments but generally. It is only right that we should encourage not only interest in but access to places of this nature. I therefore ask the Minister whether he has any thoughts on the question of discussing access when grants are given. For example, if the field monuments are in the National Park, will he have discussions with the National Park authorities to give priority for access to them?
Furthermore, in the case of access agreements the National Parks authorities pay compensation. If a National Parks authority negotiates access to a field monument, where the owner of the land may be receiving a grant under this Bill, will compensation for access to that monument come out of the very limited revenue of the National Park, or from Government funds? If the Minister cannot answer that question now he may be able to do so in the future. It is an important point.
I asked the Minister's hon. Friend yesterday about the access provided by the Forestry Commission in its forests. I was very pleased to see that out of the 300 forests owned by the Commission open access was allowed to no less than 230.
There are only 12 to which they allowed no access at all. Perhaps the Minister could have discussions with his hon. Friends and with the Forestry Commission to ensure that, wherever possible, the public have access—even if only limited access—to these field monuments. We feel that this is important, and that my hon. Friend should make sure that none of these ancient monuments falls within the 12 forests to which the Forestry Commission—perhaps for very good commercial reasons—feels unable to grant public access.
My last point is on the question of wardens, and I am really flying a kite at this stage. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that the real functions of these wardens would be in the field, as I have found the general environmental problem to be that so often we pass the Act in Parliament, yet we do very little to enforce it. For example, we have a very good system of public footpaths; the law is fairly clear about them, but we are losing miles and miles each and every year because there is no one to enforce the law. On the surface the local authority has power to do so, but how many local authorities have appointed footpath officers? Very few, and they are very stretched in trying to guard the footpaths.
Mention was made of the opencast excavation of clay, or opencast mining. We found that the planning procedure is very carefully laid down, but my experience is that time and time again

the operators ignore the planning permission; they go further than their terms of reference. There is very little redress on this point; once a big hole has been excavated, what can one do? One of the great difficulties is that few local authorities have appointed excavation officers. I give credit to the West Riding; finally it has appointed an officer to go round the country checking on excavations to ensure that the terms of agreement are being adhered to.
Instead of having all these multifarious officers to deal with fairly minor but important aspects of our heritage, is there not a case for giving statutory powers to local authorities to appoint environmental officers not only to look at field monuments, but to keep a check on general large-scale planning permission? I put that forward as an idea.
With the hope that the Minister can give us some answers, I certainly give a welcome to the Bill.

Mr. Ifor Davies: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate. It occurred to me that the Bill has been described as very simple and very modest, but as the debate has proceeded it has become obvious that the Bill has attracted great attention. Many points of emphasis have been made which deserve to be highlighted.
The Minister very kindly made reference to my constituency in his opening remarks, and referred to the sites at the Gower Peninsula. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in a very excellent speech, highlighted many important matters. He referred to the motorway going through his constituency, and brought out some very important archaeological matters. There is no chance—at least I hope not—of a motorway going through the Gower Peninsula, but I think it is extremely important to take note of the emphasis laid this morning on drawing attention to these sites. I wish to pay my tribute to the inspectorate, for example, and to those people who, over the years, have made a contribution to the protection of what is now the business of this Bill.
Incidentally, the operative word here is the protection of " certain " ancient monuments; it does not mean preserving them all, as my hon. Friend so rightly said. We need to review this matter, to


make quite sure that we are not preserving things that need not be preserved but lay emphasis on the "certain" aspect.
My hon. Friend was quite right in drawing attention to the need for good will in operating the Bill, and in securing the co-operation of the education authorities. I believe that many young people in our educational establishments would welcome very much the opportunity, as stated by my hon. Friend, of taking an interest in these matters, and a great deal could be done in that direction.
I am glad that attention was drawn to the question of costs, as the figure quoted here is eventually £150,000 a year; I take it that that will be a maximum figure. We ought, therefore, to have some indication that the Minister is satisfied that everything possible will be done, not only in having good will, but in having the active co-operation of our young people in this matter. Their attention should be drawn to the emphasis that we are laying on the importance of preserving and protecting "certain" ancient monuments.
Like other hon. Members here and in another place, it is right that we should welcome the Bill. Although it is modest, it can make a very important step forward in the direction in which we all hope we shall proceed to fulfil the other recommendations of the Walsh Report.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Channon: By leave of the Committee; I very much welcome the debate we have had this morning; it has been extremely valuable. I will try and deal with all the points raised, and will certainly consider very carefully what hon. Members have said. There will be other opportunities of returning to it, either during the debate, or I will get in touch with the hon. Members concerned.
May I thank very much my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) for his extremely kind remarks, which will be very warmly welcomed by those involved in this extremely important work, and also the remarks of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies) about the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments. I believe that these are some of the finest of our public servants, who do a wonderful job regardless of what

Government is in power, and I am glad that the Committee has recognised their great work over a long period of time.
My hon. Friend raised the point about the Moot at Downton; perhaps I could write to him about that. He was kind enough to say that he had not given me notice, and I will make inquiries about it and will be in touch with him.
Hon. Members have referred to the importance of schools and education authorities in getting young people involved, and I take note of those remarks. I will consider what we can do. I do not think it needs legislation; it needs stimulation in some way.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in his extremely informative speech which needs a great deal of study, and other hon. Members, raised the point that one cannot protect everything. This Bill is, of course, selective, as the hon. Member for Gower points out. There are about 100,000 field monuments in all. This will protect about 8,000 of them. We can at least be said to have been selective to that extent. If we let many of the 8,000 go, it would be very deeply regretted by people in the locality. I also think that we should have to excavate, and aerial photography would not be enough. If we had to excavate even a reasonable proportion of those 8,000, it would be extremely expensive.
The point of aerial photography has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We use aerial photography quite a lot. I should imagine that the R.A.F., when they take their aerial photographs, are not particularly dealing with archælogical points and I doubt whether their photographs would be of interest to archæologists. I will, however, consider what the hon. Member said and will make inquiries. I will also consider the important points he raised about access agreements, and perhaps we can return to this subject at a later stage.
I entirely agree with one thing he said about the Bill, which is true of practically all legislation passed in this House. We pass Bills and then somehow we imagine that the great British public knows they have been passed and that things will actually happen. That is by no means sufficient, and continuing action is always necessary. Certainly, wardens will be very important in this respect.
May I now deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I think his first point was that this would cost £150,000, and if the mathematical computation was made it would come out roughly at £20 per site and that, in his view, would very often be too much. I agree with him, but I do not think it is fair just to divide this by the 8,000 and say that it is going to be £20 each. There will be some sites that are very large and which will have to have a great deal more than £20; there will be some sites which will be very small and the figure will be lower than that.
I cannot go much further than that today. I think the exact detailed arrangements for the allocation of the money is something on which we should have discussions with the bodies particularly concerned with this matter. However, it certainly would be the intention that the payments would vary very widely, depending upon the size, condition and the special circumstances of the monument. It may be possible to have some sort of formula that will meet most cases. But although the average split would be £20, it does not mean to say that most people would get £20, because some sites would be much bigger and some would he much smaller.

Mr. Dalyell: I am curious to know how the figure of £150,000 was arrived at by the Walsh Committee. Was this simply an arbitrary figure or was there some basis for it?

Mr. Channon: I think it was the sort of figure that the Government thought would provide for a reasonable scheme. If I can give the hon. Member more details about that, I shall do so later, but I think the intention was to provide a scheme that was not derisory and yet which was not ludicrously extravagant, and this was thought to be the right sort of sum. I am not sure whether it is, but I think it is worth a try.
There was only one point on which I did not agree with the hon. Member, and that was the starred basis. At one stage he was rather keen on the treatment of starred monuments. This was one of the Walsh recommendations which we have some doubts about, and the Ancient Monuments Boards are not keen on this suggestion.

Mr. Dalyell: Why is that?

Mr. Channon: We have to be guided by the experts, and the Ancient Monuments Boards themselves are reluctant that there should be starred monuments. They think it would reduce the value of being a scheduled monument if some were starred and others were not. However, all these points will be considered and opportunities will exist for further discussion about them, if not in this Bill at a later date.
I come to the important points raised by various hon. Members about the generality of the Walsh recommendations. With one exception, the Government accept those recommendations of the Walsh Committee requiring legislation. The one recommendation on which we have some doubt is the recommendation for the powers of compulsory guardianship to be extended. At the present time our view is that the powers of compulsory guardianship are wide enough.
I should have liked to have seen a Bill put before this Committee dealing with all the recommendations of the Walsh Committee. This would be an extremely long and complicated Bill, going into many Clauses, and there is no parliamentary time for it this Session. Consequently, the Government, knowing full well that we would face criticism, quite rightly, from hon. Members who took this view, had to decide whether to wait until we could do the whole legislation or come forward with some modest proposal which would deal with what I believe to be the most urgent recommendations, which is why we have come forward with this. I can give the hon. Member the undertaking for which he asked me, that the Government accept those recommendations which require legislation, with the exception of the one dealing with powers of compulsory guardianship, and they intend to bring in a Bill at a convenient legislative opportunity, which, I fear, will not be in this Session, to implement those recommendations.
I can well understand the scepticism which the hon. Member meets with individual archaeologists who believe that it is just an attempt to fob them off by dealing with one of those points, but I can assure him that the Government do accept the legislative recommendations of the Walsh Committee. We also accept


virtually all the other recommendations. There are one or two little ones which we are not able to accept in full at the present time, the question of starring being being one of them. I hope that will in some way allay the hon. Member's anxieties.

Mr. Dalyell: It does not entirely allay them. If I am being told by the Department that there is a shortage of parliamentary draftsmen, this is something that all hon. Members understand very well, as it is a real problem. On the other hand, if I am told that there is a shortage of parliamentary time, I think this is a bogus reason because the Government must know perfectly well that on a Bill of this kind hon. Members of the Opposition who are likely to be put on it either have a genuine interest or want to be constructive. It is not the sort of Bill on which there would be endless controversy.

Mr. Channon: I can assure the hon. Member that it is not bogus. It is not only a shortage of parliamentary time, but, as he quite rightly says, it is the shortage of draftsmen's time as well. It is a Bill which would probably contain over 50 Clauses and would be extremely complicated to draft. In fact, one of the major considerations that led to the Government's decision was the shortage of draftsmen's time, not only now but during the framing of the Bill. I personally believe there is a shortage of parliamentary time, because so-called non-controversial Bills of this kind lead to the consumption of a great deal of parliamentary time.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office and I who dealt with the so-called non-controversial Countryside Bill when we were in opposition know full well the extreme demands that made upon parliamentary time with, on that occasion, the maximum amount of good will on both sides of the Committee. I believe that exactly the same would quite likely take place if there were an Ancient Monuments Bill with all the interesting issues we have debated today consuming a lot of parliamentary time. Perhaps it should, because it is not something which Parliament often debates and it would be very interesting to have to deal with these matters. I

assure the hon. Member that I am not trying to put him off. It is a shortage both of parliamentary time and, a very important factor, of parliamentary draftsmen's time in this extremely full Session of Parliament.
The other point raised by the hon. Member was whether this was the right way to spend £150,000, if this was the extra money available, or whether £150,000 should be spent in this way. Of course, extra money is being spent on ancient monuments. The total amount of money spent is approximately £2½ million a year. We have just announced an extra £100,000 for excavations next year and, of course, Lincoln will get a share of it. Last year I saw some very interesting work that has been done over the years in Winchester, in which the Department played a small part, and I think that is another interesting example. I entirely agree with the hon. Member about the importance of urban excavation of cities of this kind.
He asked me about Durrington Walls. They are fully protected by the Government under a preservation order, so they are not really analogous to the smaller field monuments dealt with in this Bill.
He asked me about details of the agreement mentioned by the Walsh Committee and inquired what agreement has been reached with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Defence. We have reached agreement with both these Ministries on the lines suggested by the Walsh Committee. The Ministry of Agriculture have agreed to inform farmers applying for ploughing grants by a paragraph on the form ensuring that a grant is given when they apply in the way that Walsh dealt with it. The Ministry of Defence have issued a specific instruction to troops on firing ranges to take particular care where there are ancient monuments which might be threatened.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) has any knowledge of how this is working on Salisbury Plain, but if any hon. Member has any knowledge that either of these arrangements are not working, I shall be only too delighted to take the case up. Certainly, there is complete agreement in the Government about this issue.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand that they are worried about deep ploughing in Durrington Walls. Am I to understand that this cannot take place under the preservation order?

Mr. Channon: Durrington Walls is covered by a preservation order and should, therefore, be receiving full protection, but, in view of what the hon. Member has said, I shall make full inquiries about the case that he has in mind and will write to him.
The hon. Member asked me about recommendation No. 16 of the Walsh Committee. Some approaches have already been made to extraction and development groups about mineral extraction, and a more general approach will be made in the very near future.
He also asked me about labelling. There is some labelling, but I accept that more needs to be done. I think that it may be necessary to legislate to make this compulsory; that is one of the matters that we should have to consider if a Bill were to be brought in to implement more of the Walsh Committee's recommendations.
I was interested in the reference to motorways. It has recently been announced that we are to spend an extra £50,000 a year on excavations when motorways threaten monuments. That will more than double the present expenditure on excavations of this kind, and we are certainly trying to help in this way. I should like to remind hon. Members of the Dover case, where my right hon. Friend arranged for the level of the road to be raised so that an important Roman site was left undamaged and extra time was allowed for the site to be excavated. I certainly accept the hon. Member's point; all of us would like to spend even more, but efforts are being made which should be of real benefit.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not sure that we are asking for more money at this stage, but some of us would like to see the money spent more quickly. As the Government know very well, the problem with motorway construction is that a site is discovered and it may be a matter not of days but of hours, and, as there is such an enormous amount of money tied up in motorway construction, it is

quite unrealistic to expect it to be brought to a halt even for more than two days. Therefore, I should like an assurance that the Government will think of ways in which a decision to spend money or not to do so can be made more quickly. I think that this is very difficult.

Mr. Channon: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member says. In the Dover case, the extra time was an important factor which helped, but I note what the hon. Member has said and I will examine the matter to see whether there is a way of speeding up the process. Perhaps the hon. Member and I can get in touch about that at a later stage.
The hon. Member asked me what official advice we had received from archaeologists. I can assure him that we have had very considerable discussions with the Ancient Monuments Boards and the other organisations. Perhaps I could cover that later in my remarks. If I fail to do so, I will let the hon. Gentleman know; we have had very full discussions, though I quite accept that there may be individual archaeologists who will not necessarily agree. In general, however, the Measure has been very much welcomed so far as I have been able to discover.
Hon. Members have asked what powers the wardens have. They have no powers, but, in the last resort, the Secretary of State has the power to make a preservation order and monuments can, as has always been the case, be given statutory protection. In that case, they can be fully protected. What the Bill seeks to achieve in the ovewhelming majority of such cases is to do it by good will and agreement rather than by resorting to statutory powers. However, the statutory powers exist and, in a case where an agreement could not be made, it would be necessary to decide whether it was sufficiently important to use those statutory powers.
Some of the recommendations of the Walsh Committee are for the local authorities to consider and, as the hon. Member knows, there is nothing that I can do to compel the laggard authorities. However, we shall certainly use what persuasion we can to encourage laggard authorities to take the necessary steps as recommended by the Walsh Committee.
The hon. Member also asked me about Lord Greenwood's remarks about polluter payments and the new principle involved here. I expect that you, Mr. Fitch, would rule me out of order if I were to quote Lord Greenwood, but perhaps I could say that he said that he did not want the point taken too seriously. I think he made it in passing in his speech, the text of which I have in front of me, though I accept that this is in a way a novel principle. Except in cases of compulsory protection, the Government have not previously offered people financial inducements in respect of their own monuments. However, in a way no new principle is involved, as the Acts already provide for compensation in cases of compulsory protection, and it is now extended to voluntary protection.
We examined the possibility of doing this in another way, by purchase, leasing or compulsory protection. The costs involved would be very much higher. It is roughly estimated that a capital sum of about £7½ million would be required to purchase, some £4½ million or a little more for leasing, or over £4 million for compensation for compulsory protection. The Government would also have to meet continuing maintenance liabilities in the first two cases.
As against the very high costs for the other methods of proceeding, it seems to me that £150,000 a year is a much better financial burden, and I think that ancient monuments are not wholly analogous to historic buildings or other ancient monuments for which other arrangements can be made. With historic buildings, there are already very strong powers; they are already in beneficial use, and owners can reasonably be expected to maintain them. It seems to me that an ancient monument is very often an unusable ruin and is a liability rather than an asset to its owner.
One can argue whether the principle is right or wrong, but I believe that what is more important in this case is the question whether this will mean that more of these monuments will be protected than

otherwise would have been the case. All the evidence so far shows that the scheme will be warmly welcomed and widely used and that many thousands of monuments will be protected or at least put out of danger than would otherwise have been the case. Personally, I believe that to be a good cause, and I think all the members of the Committee, including the hon. Member, share that view. We shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters in fuller detail during the Committee stage if hon. Members agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, and if there is anything that I have not covered, I will return to it on that occasion if hon. Members wish.
I am most grateful to hon. Members for the spirit in which they have dealt with the Bill, for the constructive criticism put forward and for the very interesting and provocative ideas raised, all of which we shall study, and I hope that the general conclusion of our deliberations will be beneficial to the field monuments covered by the Bill, which I think is the aim of all members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Field Monuments Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Mr. Channon: Before we rise, Mr. Fitch, may I say that I understand that this is the first Committee over which you have presided. May I hope that all your Committees will be as equable, as well-disciplined and as speedy as this one. I am sure that we owe it largely to your conduct in the Chair, and we are all grateful to you.

Mr. Dalyell: I am afraid that there is not much hope that all your Committees will be as equable, but I should like to associate myself with those remarks.

The Chairman: I thank the Committee for those kind remarks.

Committee rose at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.




THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Fitch, Mr. (Chairman)
Fisher, Mr. Nigel


Blenkinsop, Mr.
Gibson-Watt, Mr.


Channon, Mr.
Goodhew, Mr.


Churchill, Mr.
Hamilton, Mr. Michael


Clark, Mr. David
Harper, Mr.


Cunningham, Mr. George
Pike, Miss


Dalyell, Mr.
Ridsdale, Mr.


Davies, Mr. Ifor
Sinclair, Sir


Dunnett, Mr.
Trafford, Dr.